Comparing two newly elected Democratic governors
With so many Republicans winning governorships last November, there will be ample opportunity in the months ahead to compare and contrast the actions of other states’ executives with our own, and to look elsewhere for working solutions to the problems Georgia also faces. For today, I call your attention to a column by The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn about the divergent approaches so far by two newly elected Democratic governors: Andrew Cuomo of New York and Pat Quinn of Illinois (who assumed the office after the fall of Rod Blagojevich and was elected as governor for the first time in November):
At yesterday’s inaugural in Springfield, Gov. Quinn delivered himself of an address that made ample use of someone’s Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. … Apart from promising that “we will stabilize our budget,” there was little hint that the taxpayers of Illinois need any larger reform in the way the politicians handle their money.
By contrast, before the first week of this new year was out, Gov. Cuomo had delivered separate inaugural and state-of-the-state addresses that would have drawn cheers at a tea party. Notwithstanding the occasional nod to certain progressive canons (e.g., same-sex marriage and public financing of political campaigns), the thrust was clear. If Mr. Cuomo were a Republican, some of his metaphors—property taxes “killing” New Yorkers, citizens feeling “betrayed” by government—would have him accused of contributing to America’s “climate of hate.” He even used his first inaugural as governor to swipe from the Gipper’s first inaugural as president the quip that government today is more the problem than the solution.
In short, Messrs. Cuomo and Quinn appear to read events around them in opposite ways. Manifestly Mr. Cuomo has noticed that across the border in New Jersey, Republican Gov. Christie has taken on the public-employee unions responsible for so much of the state’s budget problems, and has become a popular national figure for it. In sharp contrast, Mr. Quinn appears oblivious to the market-oriented policies next door (privatization of roads, the end of collective bargaining for state workers, etc.) that have helped Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels turn his state around.
While we haven’t been treated to the same volume of painstaking accounts of internal strife among Democrats that we saw after the Republicans’ national-election disasters in 2006 and 2008, it will be instructive to see how newly elected Democrats respond to the public’s verdict in November. My guess is that you will see the majority of them react as Quinn apparently is: Wait out the storm of GOP momentum, and then proceed as before. That’s the mentality congressional Democrats displayed in sticking with Nancy Pelosi as their leader after a 63-seat loss in the elections.
We should all be hopeful, however, that more Democrats take the tack that Cuomo is taking (at least rhetorically; as McGurn notes, his words still must be put into action). Again from McGurn’s column, here are some of the things Cuomo has had to say in recent days:
“[M]y friends, we must right-size the state government for today. The state government has grown too large, we can’t afford it, the number of local governments has grown too large, and . . . we’re going to have to reduce and consolidate.”
(snip)
“[I]t cannot be underestimated. Young people all across upstate New York who are leaving because they believe there is no economic future left. The taxpayers on Long Island who are imprisoned in their homes because they can’t afford to pay the property taxes anymore, but the value of the home has dropped so low that they can’t afford to sell the house because they can’t pay off the mortgage. The laid-off construction worker [in] Brooklyn who can’t find a job and is fretting about what he’s going to do to feed his family when the unemployment insurance runs out.”
Again, let’s await some evidence before declaring Andrew Cuomo a new kind of Democrat, not to mention a new kind of Cuomo. But a Democrat who takes that approach to his state’s issues will be a breath of fresh air compared to the crew that now calls the tune for the Dems — as well as a formidable player nationally.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
116 comments Add your comment
CJ
January 11th, 2011
11:15 am
William McGurn: “Mr. Cuomo has noticed that across the border in New Jersey, Republican Gov. Christie has taken on the public-employee unions responsible for so much of the state’s budget problems, and has become a popular national figure for it.”
First of all, despite the network and cable channels’ attempts to get America to fall in love with this loud mouth, the last time I looked, Christie’s approval rating was in the mid-40’s in his state. And since he screwed the pooch during the recent snow storm up there, I suspect it’s even lower now.
And in response to Kyle’s reference to “GOP momentum” in Congress (”…that’s the mentality congressional Democrats displayed in sticking with Nancy Pelosi”), Kyle conflates victory with popularity (again, check the polls on how most Americans feel about Congressional Republicans or their priorities).
Also recall that when Hastert and Frist stepped down after losing control of their respective chambers in ‘06, their lieutenants in the leadership stepped in to replace them with no noticeable change in governing styles or positions. After bigger losses in ‘08, Republicans maintained the same leadership and argued that they lost because they didn’t govern far enough from the right.
So, Kyle’s message appears to be: When Republicans lose, move to the right. When Democrats lose, move to the right. From his perspective, I suppose that makes sense.
With regard to New York state, I’ll repeat something that I’ve written many times. Contrary to the media meme, liberals and Democrats don’t believe in bigger government. Nor do we believe in smaller government (in fact, neither do most Republicans who claim otherwise). Without knowing the details, I suspect that both Quinn and Cuomo are looking at the landscape and proposing solutions that best fit the specific needs of their states.
Kyle Wingfield
January 11th, 2011
11:41 am
You haven’t looked recently enough, CJ. The latest poll, released today, has Christie at 53% after one year in office — up four percentage points from November. http://bit.ly/gOxKLo
And I’d say conflating victory with popularity is better than conflating defeat with popularity.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
11:51 am
CJ does have trouble with his conflating does he?
It’s tough when all you have to conflate with defeat, is defeat.
John
January 11th, 2011
11:57 am
Kyle, you’re talking about the same Gov. Christie who canceled a tunnel project breaking a contract with the Federal Government and now refuses to repay the Federal Government when New Jersey Transit signed a work agreement that requires it to pay back the money if ARC was canceled. On top of that, instead of using it’s own in-house attorneys or attorneys general, which are on the payroll, Gov. Christie has hired an outside DC firm at the cost of $485 an hour. A spokesman for Gov. Christie said he wasn’t sure where the money to pay that rate would come from — only that it would be found. Is this fiscal responsibility?
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
12:01 pm
Without knowing the details, I suspect that both Quinn and Cuomo are looking at the landscape and proposing solutions that best fit the specific needs of their states.
OMG! Kyle, did CJ really make that post!?
CJ has me worried. CJ you’re beginning to sound like a state’s rights advocate, have you lost your all powerful BIG GUB’MENT soul?
Kyle Wingfield
January 11th, 2011
12:10 pm
MHS: It’s just like “irresponsible” rhetoric. When liberals do it, “everyone knows” they’re acting in the public’s best interests. When conservatives do it, “everyone knows” they’re just trying to re-create slavery, the Civil War, Nazi Germany, [add your foolish analogy here].
Arrogant B@st@rd
January 11th, 2011
12:12 pm
Well at least, I presume both governors did not miss their signing in ceremonies like those two lamebrains/freshman GOP congressmen, who missed theirs.
They were at a fund raising “party” elsewhere in the capitol building – a violation of House rules that block the use of government facilities to raise campaign cash.
(Fitzpatrick’s office has denied that the event was for fundraising. But the Sunlight Foundation, a campaign finance watchdog group, reports that attendees were asked to pay $30 for transportation to the event and were solicited for contributions to Fitzpatrick’s 2012 re-election campaign.)
You lie! HAHAHAHAHA!
You’re doing a heckuva job connies…
House GOP leaders are scrambling to remedy the rocky start to the opening of the 112th Congress by approving a measure Friday to invalidate votes taken by two Republican lawmakers who weren’t properly sworn in.
As The Ticket reported Thursday, the leaders were stunned discover that two representatives — veteran Texas Rep. Pete Sessions and freshman Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick — weren’t on the House floor Wednesday during the official swearing-in. Instead, they were in the Capitol Visitors Center at a party marking Fitzpatrick’s first day in Congress. At one point, the lawmakers looked up and noticed on TV that the oath was being administered to their colleagues.
As the Morning Call’s Colby Itkowitz reported, the two raised their hands and joined along with their comrades. But under House rules, a TV-mediated swearing-in doesn’t count. Sessions and Fitzpatrick continued to vote on the floor, even though they weren’t properly sworn in — which has effectively invalidated every vote the House has taken since Wednesday, including the vote to elect John Boehner as speaker.
After learning of the problem Thursday, Boehner quickly swore in Sessions and Fitzpatrick, coincidentally on the same day Republicans took part in a reading of the Constitution, which the two technically violated.
The worst government that dirty money, and LOTS of it, can buy…
CJ
January 11th, 2011
12:26 pm
Personally, I’ve never heard of Fairleigh Dickinson University or their pollsters.
As of 1/11, PPP puts Christie at 48 percent (higher than I expected), and goes on to state “The president would easily retain New Jersey’s 14 electoral votes against any comer,
defeating Christie, 55-38; Newt Gingrich, 54-37; Mike Huckabee, 53-36; Mitt Romney,
52-37; and Sarah Palin by a whopping 59-29.”
CJ
January 11th, 2011
12:26 pm
Here’s the link: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NJ_01111023.pdf
John
January 11th, 2011
12:34 pm
Arrogant B@st@rd, I’m surprised how conservatives, especially Tea Partiers have been quiet about this. How can Tea Party members of the House, stand there and not make this an issue. The Constitution was violated on the same day it was read on the House floor. It was the first time in our history, this type of violation has ever occurred. The same people who claimed the HealthCare bill was rushed down our throats (even though is was over a year the bill was worked on), the same people who said they would post bills online a minimum of 3 days before voting on it, the same people who said they would allow amendments to bills turned about and quickly wrote a bill, allowed only 4 minutes of debate (2 minutes for each side) and not allow any amendments to be offered. One would think, Constitutionalists especially would have called for more time to look at the issues involved more carefully. What the bill, passed by Republicans, did was to nullify the votes only. All other work done be these 2 non-members, including introducing bills on the floor was not addressed.
CJ
January 11th, 2011
12:38 pm
Kyle: When liberals do it, “everyone knows” they’re acting in the public’s best interests. When conservatives do it, “everyone knows” they’re just trying to re-create slavery,…
To clarify:
I don’t understand the quotation marks around “everyone knows” because, clearly, everybody doesn’t know. But to clarify when liberals do it, they’re generally acting in the public’s best interests. When conservatives do it, they’re generally trying to
create slaveryenrich the rich.The social issues (Southern Strategy, anti-Islam, English only, anti-gay,…) are primarily get-out-the-vote strategies or misdirection strategies with little bearing on their actual intentions when it comes to governing.
Kyle Wingfield
January 11th, 2011
1:02 pm
“Personally, I’ve never heard of Fairleigh Dickinson University or their pollsters.”
They were within spitting distance of PPP as of last summer according to the pollster ratings you’ve cited on previous occasions (these are the most recent ratings from Five Thirty-Eight I could find that included more than a handful of pollsters): http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings
Port O'John
January 11th, 2011
1:18 pm
Another one dimensional, partisan post from Kyle. Of course Kyle would focus on democrats instead of looking at the problems exacerbated by 8 years of GOP-only rule in Georgia. No progress on water, education, infrastructure or transportation. Last year’s transportation bill by the legislation just shoved the problem of transportation off to local jurisdictions – who’ve already proved they won’t be able to work together.
But don’t mind the problems in Georgia, let’s focus on New York and Illinois where Kyle can tell scary the democratic boogeymen. I know Kyle, you claim there is “plenty of time” to examine how GOP governors are doing, but I don’t believe you’ll ever say anything negative about anyone who has an R by their name or calls themselves a ‘tea-partier’.
Move over Alabama, Georgia is taking your place at the bottom of the pile.
jconservative
January 11th, 2011
1:19 pm
“…we must right-size the state government for today. The state government has grown too large,…”
Is there any way we can get this message to our new governor?
A few years ago, when money flowed freely from the tax tills, state government just exploded. Former members of the legislature, their cousins, aunts and uncles, all found employment at the state feeding trough.
But that was then. This is now.
State revenue is drying up.
Tax Increase talk is in the air!
Reducing the Size of Government is still a Nasty Word!
Is it possible Deal is a Democrat in Republican clothing?
carlosgvv
January 11th, 2011
1:24 pm
Don’t expect any differences between Sonny and Nathan. Like all Republicans, their first and foremost priority is to Big Business. Their idea of serving the people is giving them the crumbs from the table. Fortunately, the Democrats still have their differences and some of them actually care about the people.
AmVet
January 11th, 2011
1:52 pm
The Corporatist Republicans think because they won the last election, (after getting epically destroyed in the previous two), they now have some sort of “mandate”.
But ever since Nixon/Reagan/Gingrich/BushCorp, the GOP has found that even a a semblance of ethical integrity and any respect whatsoever for the rule of law, especially the serially disregarded United States Constitution, to be a major obstacle in how they run their organization.
Frankly the once Grand Old Party has become a gigantic embarrassment…
John
January 11th, 2011
2:15 pm
Kyle, instead of comparing 2 newly elected Democratic governors would you call out Republicans and the hypocrisy in the Republican led House. They call themselves defenders of the Constitution and had it read in the House. At the same time, they violated the very same document by allowing 2 non-members (since they had not been sworn in) to participate in introducing bills as well as vote on bills. Realizing this violation (first time in US history), they quickly introduced a bill for vote (breaking their Pledge to America by not putting it up on the internet at least 3 days before a vote) and allowed each party only 2 minutes each for debate and not allowing any amendments (breaking another pledge for open bill process). In the end, all this bill did was nullify the votes these non-members cast while still allowing the bills they introduced to go forward. They took no time in studying the issue and it’s ramifications. Does that now mean that any non-member of Congress (including myself) can now bring up bills in the House?
poison pen
January 11th, 2011
2:28 pm
John, they learned this from the bills that passed under Obama, but don’t worry, once it gets passed we will learn what’s in it.
John
January 11th, 2011
2:44 pm
@poison pen
Show me one bill (especially one to address their violation of the Constitution) passed under Democratic leadership that was written and passed on the same day with only 4 minutes of debate (2 minutes for each party).
John
January 11th, 2011
2:47 pm
@poison pen
Republicans keep saying they have a mandate from the American people to change Washington and change they promised. If that’s the case, they cannot use the excuse Democrats did it in the past…it doesn’t matter what was done in the past by either party.
DebbieDoRight
January 11th, 2011
2:47 pm
Kyle: Again, let’s await some evidence before declaring Andrew Cuomo a new kind of Democrat,
I’m still waiting for the “compassionate” conservative. In essence you’ll see yours when I see mine.
DebbieDoRight
January 11th, 2011
2:50 pm
John: Kyle, instead of comparing 2 newly elected Democratic governors would you call out Republicans and the hypocrisy in the Republican led House.
Don’t hold your breath on that one – ever hear of the saying “a cold day in hell”………………………
DebbieDoRight
January 11th, 2011
2:52 pm
carlosgov: Don’t expect any differences between Sonny and Nathan. Like all Republicans, their first and foremost priority is to Big Business
Don’t forget about their wallets – Sonny didn’t and I’ll bet the farm Deal won’t either.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
2:53 pm
With no claim to infinite knowledge it would be nice if the people on the left would at least took the time to learn why a conservative can’t be a Nazi, Kyle. How many of them know that NAZI is an acronym and not a word? Okay, libs with half a brain you can put your hands down. Now, for the rest of the smack talking socialist liberals allow me to introduce you to your brethren…
National Socialist German Workers’ Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
3:16 pm
The Corporatist Republicans, would be in reality laissez-faire Capitalist, “Classical Liberals” like Bush. Just let BIG B’NESS, Wall Street and the Banks run the affairs of economic governance for the country’s general welfare, no need to perform the regulations enumerated in the commerce clause.
Now you know why I’m a populist. I hate Socialism (BIG GUB’MENT) and Corporatism (BIG B’NESS).
BTW, the Republicans know that mandate is under a lease agreement. If they violate the terms, we revoke their lease and take back the mandate.
Go Tea Party.
John
January 11th, 2011
3:19 pm
Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
carlosgvv
January 11th, 2011
3:25 pm
DebbieDoRight
You can be sure as long as they serve their corporate masters, their wallets will be very full.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
3:32 pm
They declared support for a nationalist form of socialismthat was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
same link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
When has the right, let alone the far right, ever been for providing “social welfare programs for workers”?
The right has always advocated letting the individual provide for their own “social welfare” not the government.
JDW
January 11th, 2011
3:35 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
2:53 pm
“With no claim to infinite knowledge it would be nice if the people on the left would at least took the time to learn why a conservative can’t be a Nazi”
Given your logic I assume you are in full support of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in thier struggle against those oppressors in the Republic of Korea.
John
January 11th, 2011
3:41 pm
@Michael H. Smith, check out how Nazis they felt about homosexuality, religion and race. Those are more closely tied to the right. Do conservatives believe in gay rights? Nazis didn’t either. Look at the position of the conservatives when it comes to illegal immigrants…including their position with the 14th amendment. Take a look at religion as well…conservatives have more in common with the Nazis that the left in this area.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
3:47 pm
I’ll clear up the assumptions JDW on how I view Korea. I support South Korea and hope to GOD North Korea collapses. Furthermore hope, China doesn’t prevent such a collapse though I know they will never allow it to happen.
Now as to how South Korea runs their government that could be where I have some disagreements. Big surprise, I have disagreements with our government too on how it runs our country.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
3:51 pm
Those are more closely tied to the right?
No John, those are more closely tied to bigots and they have ardent members on the political left and the right, filling their ranks.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
4:11 pm
Look at the position of the conservatives when it comes to illegal immigrants
Oh goodie. John do you have an allegiance to, or have you ever in your life sworn an allegiance to, the flag of United States of America and to the “Republic” for which it stands?
If so, then you should have the same position that conservatives do for the very same reasons (1) keeping your sworn oath to the Republic (2) in support of and in defending the laws we live under as a Republic. That John is not bigotry, it is called in many circles loyalty and abiding by the laws of your country.
Conservatives are not anti-immigration, we are however anti-”illegal anything” not just “illegal” aliens.
John
January 11th, 2011
4:27 pm
@Michael H. Smith
Really Michael, so are you saying conservatives believe and support gay rights, including marriage? Haven’t conservatives pushed for years for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and have succeed at several state levels? Are you also saying conservatives believe in respecting the rights off all religions, including Muslims? Conservatives support the building of Islamic center near Ground Zero? When conservatives talk about bringing prayer in the schools, are they including prayers of all faiths, or only Christian prayer?
Peter
January 11th, 2011
4:30 pm
So Kyle what did Sonny do for the state of GA, but increase expenses down the road ?
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
4:38 pm
First of all John I knew this was coming but I’m willing to accommodate you on the gay thing provided you can keep emotions out of the argument, is that fair enough?
To get religion out of the way speaking personally on behalf of my opinions and adherence to the constitution not withstanding my belief the constitution is in desperate need of amendments. Short answer to the religion question: YES
Conservatives support the building of Islamic center near Ground Zero?
This is a matter of property rights. If they own the property they own all the rights of the property, which includes the right to build upon it. (doesn’t mean I have to like it John but I do have to honor and uphold the law)
John
January 11th, 2011
4:38 pm
@Michael H. Smith
“If so, then you should have the same position that conservatives do for the very same reasons (1) keeping your sworn oath to the Republic (2) in support of and in defending the laws we live under as a Republic. That John is not bigotry, it is called in many circles loyalty and abiding by the laws of your country. ”
Let’s see…let’s talk about defending the laws we live under. Amendment 14 Article 1 of the US Constitution…All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ever heard of the term “anchor babies”? Who coined that term and or looking at ways to ignore the Constitution of birthright citizenship which is guaranteed by the article above. Some states now are talking about not issuing birth certificates to American children who are born to parents who are illegal immigrants. Are these conservative or progressive states?
midtownguy
January 11th, 2011
4:43 pm
It is interesting to read about other state’s governors. But one thing is clear, in the “race to the bottom” we win with Deal. I will be pleasantly surprised if he is no worse that Purdue. It is the best we can hope for.
Most older gay men are “fiscal conservatives and social liberals.” What has being pro-business (which I am) in any way related to Marriage Equality? People are not that simple, except in simple minds.
John
January 11th, 2011
4:46 pm
I’m not getting emotional…you claimed Nazis cannot be equated with conservatism; that they more liberal leaning. As I stated, Nazis have elements of both, the right and left. Especially to the right on social issues.
I agree with you on the property rights issue for the Islamic center. New York City was working through and issued the permit. It was a right leaning blogger who blogged about the issue, Fox New picked it up and then it became a national issue. It was conservatives who made it an issue.
Michael H. Smtih
January 11th, 2011
4:56 pm
Ever heard of the term “anchor babies”?
Yes I have and to correct you John (1) no we are not peee-gressives (2) though some like myself are “reformers” sometimes called Progressives of the Lincoln stamp as TR put it, (3) as conservatives we are not ignoring the law or the Constitution. That is why some of conservatives seek to change the means of obtaining birthright citizenship by passing a law. However, personally I support and advocate changing the amendment 14th clause 1 by amending the Constitution. Meanwhile so-called anchor babies are U.S. Citizens. (I’m not going to historic points made by Scalia, okay. I’m just not going there)
John
January 11th, 2011
5:06 pm
@Michael H. Smith
So you question my allegiance have an allegiance to, or asked if I have ever in my life sworn an allegiance to, the flag of United States of America and to the “Republic” for which it stands? You stated “If so, then you should have the same position that conservatives do for the very same reasons (1) keeping your sworn oath to the Republic (2) in support of and in defending the laws we live under as a Republic.”
But when I bring up the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, you who I assume have an allegiance to, or have in your sworn an allegiance to, the flag of United States of America and to the “Republic” for which it stands, do not have to support and defending the laws we live under as a Republic.”
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
5:11 pm
A yes or no answer would have been enough without the added drama, which tells me you might be getting a bit emotional?
Nevertheless, do you understand the difference between rights and privileges?
Suffice it to say, our rights are endowed, they are give to us by are creator under the authority of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Our privileges are granted we must earn or obtain them by complying to terms or conditions specified, as in this case by government. Agree so far?
John
January 11th, 2011
5:12 pm
Did I get that correct Michael…I who support the current law based in the Constitution am not showing allegiance to our country. But on the other hand, you who do not support the current law and want to amend the Constitution is showing allegiance to our country. Did I get that right? And to show my allegiance, I must have the same position conservatives have?
John
January 11th, 2011
5:16 pm
I’m not getting emotions Micheal…you made statements and I’m just asking you questions to back up your statements.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
5:19 pm
To your January 11th, 2011 5:06 pm with respects to my January 11th, 2011
4:56 pm
I uphold and support all the constitution and the laws of this land John until I can change them by law through the constitutional process which is your right as well as mine or any other citizen of this country. That is the way the Republic it is suppose to work John and change when needed. We are not meant to move beyond the Constitution, we first change it then we move within it.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
5:23 pm
John
January 11th, 2011
5:12 pm
To that the answer is no you didn’t – see my other posts which should clear things up.
Dabir Dalton
January 11th, 2011
5:31 pm
Kyle I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as a conservative. Since those who claim to be conservative only talk the talk to get their candidate elected then spend their time in office after winning the election excusing and justifying their failure to walk the walk. To make a long story short I’m getting mighty tired of being lied to by both the left and the right.
John
January 11th, 2011
5:33 pm
I agree with that…it was you who questioned my allegiance. We have a constitutional process to change the Constitution. You’re right, We are not meant to move beyond the Constitution, we first change it then we move within it. But we have seen within the last year Arizona pass in immigration law, which has not taken affect since it was ruled, at least in part, to be unconstitutional. Republican leaders in this state as well as others are looking to pass similar laws. Some states, including Georgia, had representatives in DC a couple weeks ago where they talked about birthright citizenship. According to some of these representatives, they are looking at laws to deny issuing birth certificates to newborns unless it can be proved at least one parent is a US citizen, which is against the 14th amendment.
Michael H. Smith
January 11th, 2011
5:48 pm
John
January 11th, 2011
5:33 pm
It ain’t over till its’ over. Meanwhile the law is the law and the Constitution is the Constitution. AZ or any other state can pass a law to test constitutionally. That too is part of the process, which is one of their options another is a constitutional convention.
On the matter of loyalty to oath I meant to goad you more than question your patriotism in any demeaning insulting manner. It drove the immigration issue point home though. It has nothing to do with being foreign, it has everything to do illegality under the present law.
Sid Farcas
January 11th, 2011
5:56 pm
Kyle, you took CJ to the woodshed like a a father taking his son. Great job! Liberals are in a panic all over this country and their predicition in 2008 that conservatives were dead in the water has come true for their own party. What really irks them is that it was the Tea Party that helped restore the republican base and helped to bring independents over as well. Oh, don’t worry CJ and liberals on here we will hold the republicans to the same scrutiny or they will pay the price come election time. Accountability is a b*tch.