February 2011
4 posts
January 2011
27 posts
President Obama, WTF* ?!!
Now, the final critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt. ~ President Obama’s 2011 SOTU address
President Obama, WTF* ?!! Don’t you realize we and future generations are already buried under a mountain of debt? What is it that you want to make sure about? Do you think someone is joking? Think there is some rounding error going on?
Here sir, let me make it crystal clear to you:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released a ten-year budget baseline showing $7 trillion in deficits over the next decade. Yet because Congress requires the CBO to include all sorts of unrealistic assumptions (that all tax cuts will expire, that the AMT will never again be patched, that discretionary spending will barely move for a decade), some adjustments must be made.
This more realistic “current-policy” budget baseline reveals a ten-year deficit of $13 trillion. The annual budget deficit never falls below $1 trillion, and reaches $1.9 trillion by 2021. At that point, the $25 trillion debt would exceed the size of the entire economy – and even that assumes a return to peace and prosperity. via Brian Riedl’s “CBO Baseline Shows Staggering Debt”Did you catch that Mr. President? Who gives the numbers and instructions on how to calculate them to the CBO? Congress. But you knew that sir didn’t you? You were a Senator and you have confirmed yourself that at least you were present.
We are living with a legacy of deficit spending that began almost a decade ago. ~ President Obama’s 2011 SOTU address
President Obama, WTF* ?!! Sir, deficit spending began not a decade ago, but DECADES ago.
If you’re saying a decade ago because President Clinton had a surplus then you are propagating a myth. There was no “Clinton Surplus”. It was an accounting trick. You know, like Enron. You know, like the CBO (see above).
* WTF stands for “Wednesday, Thursday, Friday” or “Winning The Future” or “What The F__k”.
For those of you who don’t know “Winning the Future” is based on President Obama’s Hopey Changy Thingy. That’s working brilliantly huh?
Yeah I know - President Obama, WTF* ?!!
Obama’s sort of like the guy who shows up at the party when everybody’s leaving and is all, “Hey everybody! I brought beer!”
Activists delivering Bradley Manning petition harassed, held by military
Activists delivering Bradley Manning petition held at Quantico (Raw Story) || Tags: news tweet || http://dlvr.it/DxBrN
Why do they want Manning released again? The guy leaked classified information. A ton of it.
People of good faith may disagree on how much of that information should have been classified. But there was a procedure in place to declassify it. Manning apparently decided that his objectives were more important. That wasn’t his call to make.
Of course he should expect to be detained. Since he had access to sensitive information and proved that he couldn’t be trusted with it, he should expect to be detained in solitary confinement.
The “activist reporters” (who I assume are like regular reporters with a penchant for propaganda) were detained for, what, thirty minutes? They tried to get onto a military base. It took a while to sort out what to do with them. It’s like the worst abuse of human rights since that time that guy insisted on telling me about his kidney operation and it took, like, forever to find a way to gracefully escape the conversation.
It's a small sample; however, activists are the people who are going to get out and work for a candidate, donate, etc., which is a key consideration here. It's still too far out though; if she gets an organization in place and gets going, she could change the results of these early polls. I don't think she would pick up the Paul votes; over the last year, there seems to have developed some tension between libertarian Republicans and Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin. I'm not entirely convinced she's going to make a run in 2012 though.
I also agree that a 2012 run by Palin would be a bad idea. Palin’s negatives are just to high. She generates an awful lot of energy. I see her as sort of an out-board motor. She pushes things along nicely—but you need to attach her to something with a chance of floating.
Palin Gets Her 7 Percent →
blogs.cqrollcall.com
New Hampshire Republicans, like many in other states, aren’t too keen on Sarah as a presidential contender. In their first straw poll of the 2012 campaign, she garnered only 7 percent among influential GOP activists.
I wouldn’t read too much into this particular poll. Firstly, it’s a pretty narrow group that’s a heck of a lot more focused on politics than the standard voter. Secondly, New Hampshire is not really a good predictor of who will ultimately win the primaries. The New England Republicans are a bit different than the others. Third, that 7% put Palin in 4th place behind Romney (35%), Ron Paul (11%), and Tim Pawlenty (8%). Bachmann got 5%. If Palin actually runs and can grab the Paul/Bachmann voters, she would have 23%, which would make her a serious contender. Romney sort of gets the home-state advantage in New Hampshire.
Dan the Conservative: Charity should be voluntary and community based
Charity, done right, is a double gift. In addition to the obvious benefits to the recipient, it transforms the giver. The left hasn’t figured this part out yet. By donating our time and resources, we create stronger, more resilient communities.
Mandatory “charity through taxes” loses any benefit…
We agree here but how do you feel is the best way to get resources to those less fortunate on the other side of the globe or should we in our respective locations worry about that? Sounds like you think multiple smaller charities with maybe a narrow geographical focus would work better. Maybe we could create a system like Neighborhoodr for charities. I have some for instances of how this can work and will provide those examples through the framework of a Chicago Dream Team inspired by the Mayoral Forum last night which is not in the headlines. The debate last Friday however did have brief mention. My thought is that local charities and municipalities should have a more open and visable dialogue but then again, these instutions are in many cases competing. I do like Rahm’s idea of taxing luxury services. This could cover the shortfall if taxes were to be reduced otherwise.
Spreading capitalism should do most of the work for us. If we can lift the standard of living for less wealthy countries, their own, locally owned charities can take care of the rest.
Dumping a bunch of resources clumsily somewhere else causes all sorts of problems. This is particularly true if it’s in the form of foreign “aid,” which we all know is really just a way to advance our own policies. It doesn’t help the people it’s supposed to help—and it costs us resources.
The Conservative Tumblr Meetup was a roaring good time
Kind of lonely. Still, a roaring good time.
“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”
—
Bentley was speaking to a church crowd at the time. He meant, of course, brother in a purely religious sense. His statement was practically tautological. He could have said, “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior is not my co-religionist, and I want you to be my co-religionist.”
What he intended to do was pretty clear. Just as it’s pretty clear that the quarterback didn’t intend to throw a pass straight to the other team. But … he should be more careful. This is going to be an easy interception for the left. The other team is going to make hash out of him.
“Spokane Mayor Mary Verner said the attempted bombing was unacceptable.”
—
FBI: Bomb Found on MLK Parade Route ‘Domestic Terrorism’ - FoxNews.com
It’s good she cleared that up.
Providing for the "general welfare of the country"
So in Article 1, Section 8, congressional powers, it does not say that congress has the power to tax you for not buying something. Therefore it is unconstitutional. This is how I feel, and many of you feel. But one problem arises when debating this. Those that support its constitutionality claim that “in the first line of the section it says that they have the right to provide for the general welfare of the country”
“to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;”
Now, how do you counter this argument?
If you have any questions on this topic, please send me a message.
The Constitution has this sentence in it as a way of enumerating a part of the Government’s powers. The Government gets all of its power from the people, we the people wrote the Constitution. The government has no power the people do not have because the government is just a construction of man.
No human has the right to take from another human. That is theft. No human has the right to force labor from another human. With healthcare, the government has no healthcare to give. The government must take healthcare (money for it, the actual doctor) from someone else. This can be seen as theft, or slavery. Either way you want to put it it is unconstitutional.
With respect, Evil Teabagger is going in the wrong direction with this one. While he’s offered an interesting bit of political theory—it’s not going to work in a court of law. The idea that the government has no right under the Constitution to do things that individuals can’t do doesn’t really work. If that were the case, it would apply to taxation, war, forming treaties, and so on. While the individual mandate is a serious problem, conservatives look silly if they compare it to slavery.
The proper counter-argument is that the “general welfare” clause needs to be read narrowly. Because Art. I § 8 enumerates very specific powers, the claim that the drafters through in a catch-all “general welfare” clause to cover everything else doesn’t make sense. Properly read, the “general welfare” clause should be restricted to the things that taxes can be collected for rather than a grant of additional power. In other words, it is restricting the government from collecting taxes for anything that isn’t part of the “general welfare.” The remainder of Art. I § 8 addresses the things that those tax monies can be spent on.
In other words, if the federal government wants to mandate that people purchase health insurance, it will have to do it under one of the specifically enumerated powers rather than under that particular catch-all.
Personal attorney? Oh lordy so which is the preferred business model for food distribution from the conservative standpoint; franchise, corporate, or neither and why?
As I wrote, a personal attorney. But the boss went down to Georgia for the week, so I have a bit of time to answer questions today.
There isn’t a single preferred method for food-distribution from a conservative standpoint. Conservatives generally let the market pick winners and losers for things like that. If corporations do the best job, that’s great. Franchises, independent sole-proprietorships, or even coops are fine to. Whatever works. We just want to avoid favoring one model because it has more political clout.
What's your take on minimum wage laws? Are they ultimately more constructive or destructive? And, in general, what role do you feel government should play when it comes to the labor market?
Generally speaking, the government should avoid meddling in the labor market. When the government gets involved in things, it creates perverse incentives. Businesses do wasteful things to please the government or appease regulators.
Unemployment is still nearly 10%. A lot of people who would like to work can’t. A job that pays $4 an hour doesn’t pay much—but it’s better than nothing. And as the economy improves, the guy with the crappy $4/hr job can apply for something that pays more. In the mean time, his labor isn’t going to waste, something useful is being produced, and the entire economy is lifted a bit.
Paying your workers $4/hr isn’t going to help your company’s reputation. If people care about that sort of thing, they can refuse to patronize your company. That’s all the incentive the businesses should need to pay workers more.
The markets should be able to figure out what labor is worth. In this case, government meddling kills jobs. And we need jobs now.
Which is more important? The will of the voters or the constitution?
That’s a great question that deserves a nuanced answer.
Ultimately, the will of the voters created the Constitution. And the voters could amend (or even repeal) it if their will changed enough. So the will of the voters is the trump card. But … it’s not as simple as that.
Voters are fickle. They elected Obama in 2008. In 2010 they elected conservatives. Current events can dramatically influence an election. In some cases, weather might prevent one demographic from getting to the polls. Elections aren’t something to be taken lightly—but they’re fluid enough that it’s good to have something more stable as a bedrock. That’s where the Constitution is particularly important.
Except … certain left-leaning judges keep trying to reinterpret the Constitution. It can’t be a good bedrock if it keeps changing. It’s supposed to be a safeguard against a fickle electorate. If the Constitution itself is treated as some sort of fickle, changing thing, it can’t do its job.
The will of the voters is certainly more important than the will of a couple judges.
You mentioned in an answer to a previous question that same-sex marriage "should be decided by the voters rather than the courts." Are those not practically the same thing? I thought the decisions of the courts often mirror the opinions of the voters.
The Federal Courts offer a more-or-less binding interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. State courts do the same for state constitutions. This frequently does not match the will of the voters.
The California Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples had a right to marry under the California Constitution. In reaction to that, the voters passed Proposition 8, which changed the California Constitution to (again) prohibit same-sex marriage. Following that, a Federal judge struck down Prop. 8, holding that it violated the U.S. Constitution.
This is a clear example of the courts ignoring the will of the voters.
“For their part, the media manage to be consistently unfair to the former Alaska governor — gossipy and hostile in their reportage, hysterical and condescending in their commentary — even as they follow her every move with a fascination bordering on obsession. (MSNBC, in particular, should just change its name to “Palin 24/7” and get it over with.) When commentators aren’t denouncing her, they’re busy building up her legend — exaggerating her political acumen, overpraising her communications strategy, covering her every tweet as if she were the Viceroy of Red America, and spinning out outlandish scenarios in which she captures the White House in 2012.”
—
Scenes From a Marriage - Ross Douthat - NYTimes.com
Douthat’s right, isn’t he? The Palin/MSM scrap is a sideshow. Palin has tapped a nerve in the American electorate. She’s energized a lot of previously complacent conservatives. But she’s not the future of the Republican party. The hyper-focus on this particular sideshow is a distraction the right can’t afford right now. We need to pay attention to the actual work of getting the country back on the right track.
Of course, Douthat’s also wrong. Why would a for-profit media ignore Palin? That would be like a tabloid ignoring Paris Hilton. If that’s what people want to hear about, why shouldn’t they cover it?
And why would Palin ignore the media? She’s not a policy heavy-weight or an inside-the-beltway power-broker. For better or worse, she’s a new thing. Without the media megaphone, she’s nothing. Why would she relinquish that?
Sarah Palin would be crazy to run in 2012. She worries the establishment right (like Douthat). She enrages the left (like the rest of The New York Times). She’s, in essence, an outsider. From that position, she can influence the political landscape. And that position is working for her. Why try to transform herself into something she’s not. Douthat may need to get over his expectations and let Sarah be Sarah.
Charity should be voluntary and community based
Charity, done right, is a double gift. In addition to the obvious benefits to the recipient, it transforms the giver. The left hasn’t figured this part out yet. By donating our time and resources, we create stronger, more resilient communities.
Mandatory “charity through taxes” loses any benefit to the giver. We see our money leaving. It gets filtered through a bunch of grants, and, maybe, we see some money come back and do something in the community. If we’re lucky, that something turns out to be good. The whole thing becomes impersonal. Communitys lose the ability to control where their charity dollars go. Huge amounts are lost to inefficiency and overhead.
I donate a few charities that do amazing work on remarkably slim budgets. If taxes were lower, I would donate a lot more—particularly since I could direct where that money was going and ensure that it had a meaningful impact. If one group was wasteful, I could choose another group. Charities have an incentive to be lean and transparent. But most importantly, the decision on how to direct charity dollars to have the most effectiveness would stay within the community.
Different communities have different needs. Those needs can best be identified by those closest to them.
As a conservative lawyer, do you believe that the Supreme Court ruled correctly last term in deciding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated against the states the right to keep a handgun for self-defense (in McDonald v. Chicago)?
If so -- if you agree with the plurality's use of substantive due process for gun rights -- then how do you call yourself a conservative? And if not -- if you don't agree with applying gun rights against the states -- then how do you call yourself a conservative?
Also, FYI, the "Questions?" link on your page goes to an invalid URL.
The Supreme Court was right on that one.
As Scalia would tell you, we’re not really worried about the intent of the founders. The founders disagreed with each other. We need to confine ourselves to the four courners of the Constitution. We should also have a certain respect for established precedent—particularly if it’s precedent that has stood the test of time.
We don’t need the Supreme Court to decide the easy cases. While conservatives are generally wary about expanding Constitutional protections in ways that tie the hands of state and local governments, this particular expansion was sort of a no-brainer. The Fourteenth Amendment has been incorporated against the states for every other purpose. Why should gun rights get a lower priority?
The 2nd Amendment refers to a “well-regulated militia.” It is, in essence, a protection against tyranny. Realistically speaking, nobody is going to be able to protect themselves against the U.S. government. A citizen’s militia simply can’t afford the air force that would require. But there are other kinds of things we can protect ourselves from.
Battered women can buy firearms to protect themselves from their abusers. People in crime-ridden neighborhoods can purchase weapons to protect themselves from home invasions. Most importantly, anybody considering a violent crime will need to take into account the possibility that their intended victim could be carrying a concealed weapon. Armed criminals can no longer consider themselves invincible.
Extending due process to cover the second amendments isn’t really paving a new legal road. It’s more like filling in a pothole. The extension has already been done and the McDonald case just clarifies that it applies to the second amendment. As a conservative I’m okay with that.
On a related not, what’s with everybody’s insistence on questioning my conservative credentials? Do people do that to liberals too? Is it just assumed that anybody writing on Tumblr has to either be a liberal or a fake?
How does marriage equality jeopardize "family structure" in any way?
I’m really not a sociologist—so I’m not going to have an answer that will satisfy you on that one. My point is that we just need to be careful before we do anything irrevocable. It’s an issue to study carefully.
Some conservatives make a sort of natural law argument saying that marriage is supposed to be about procreation—but I’ve never quite understood why a marriage that doesn’t procreate or only adopts would be particularly harmful.
Perhaps one of the other conservatives would do a better job of answering this one? My biggest concern about same-sex marriage is that it should be decided by the voters rather than the courts.
What's your view, as a Conservative, on same-sex marriage/marriage equality?
Society is built on families—and we want to be very, very careful not to do anything that would jeopardize the family structure. Before we do anything crazy, we want to seriously think through all the implications.
Once we think through the implications of it, we should try to think if there are any other implications we haven’t thought of yet.
Political Discourse
correlationstonone writes:
Realistically, a lot of people don’t form their own opinions - they elect champions and follow cults of personality. Most of those threads will have a strange attractor or two sitting there getting +1’d in some manner or other until everyone’s too tired to go on. That’s the other fun part; the only end is exhaustion. Nothing is ever learned or changed.
It’s really a shame there aren’t more conservatives on Tumblr. I’d love to be elected a champion and battle the vicious left for Truth and the American way. But I worry that it would be like Populous and my lack of minions would lead to defeat by attrition.
I (still) don't get feminist blogs →
dantheconservative.tumblr.com
At least, I don’t get the comments threads. I suppose anybody is allowed to have a blog about whatever they want. But I don’t understand the comments threads where there is an unwritten rule that nobody is allowed to say anything the expected audience might disagree with.
It’s like an exercise in…
but is that so wrong? is respecting other people really the worst thing in the world? i understand that opinions and beliefs are not free from scrutiny—in fact, they should be challenged constantly. however, i don’t buy this “political correctness” nonsense you’re bringing up. respect isn’t about being politically correct. it’s about respect. i’m not force-feeding you my beliefs. i’m challenging yours. you’re free to challenge mine, but i’ll let you know that i’m well-equipped to do so.
I’m for polite and respectful discourse. We shouldn’t try to be deliberately offensive. And we should obviously avoid overt racial slurs or words we know will hurt others. But the left has a vicious way of requiring people to speak a certain language simply to have their views heard. If a politician says something clumsily, it can be a career killer. This chills speech. If one misstep can cost you an election, why would you possibly try to engage others on a risky topic?
Political correctness is ultimately a way of discarding other people’s views because the words they use aren’t adequately refined. It’s a way people on the left discredit others. “Oh. Sarah Palin said blood libel. She’s clearly not educated enough to know how hurtful it is to people who aren’t actually hurt by it. We should ignore what she has to say.”
the fact of the matter is that the world would be a better place is we had open discussions. more often than not, it is the conservatives in my life who stick their fingers in their ears and claim “LIBERAL AGENDA! LIBERAL AGENDA! LIBERAL AGENDA!” louder than anyone else. i mean, by definition, conservatives HAVE to be more, well, conservative.
I’ll tell you what. If I ever stick my fingers in my ears and shout “LIBERAL AGENDA! LIBERAL AGENDA! LIBERAL AGENDA!” you’re free to call me out on it. If a few conservatives do something like that—largely when talking amongst themselves—it certainly doesn’t help efforts to engage the arguments of the left. But that doesn’t mean it’s helpful to effectively kick people out of discourse because they don’t have an expensive enough education to phrase their beliefs and experiences in an adequately sensitive manner.
you’re going to offend someone if you’re a racist or a sexist. forty years ago it was okay to call a black person ———. today it’s absolutely not okay. my point is that what is okay and what is not okay (PC or not PC to put it in your terms) is constantly shifting and changing. society is not static. society moves forward, progresses. society can’t be expected to wait while you get used to the idea that women can vote and blacks aren’t bussing your table or whatever (i can’t come up with a stereotype here).
What about the vast majority of people who aren’t racist or sexist but aren’t on top of what words are or are not okay at any particular time? We have a ton words in common usage that have some fairly nasty origins. Sometimes people use the wrong ones. Sometimes people say something at the wrong time and somebody get’s offended. That’s unfortunate—but not particularly preventable. Toes get stepped on. But what is preventable is attributing all sorts of nefarious motives to somebody for a slip of the tongue. We can’t all keep up with the chosen language of the elite—but we still have things worth saying.
using the term PC and declaring it dead is a great way of saying “i want to be a racist/sexist but i don’t want people to yell at me for it.” we will yell at you for it. why? because opinions and beliefs are again NOT free from scrutiny. just as you think you think “liberals” are too politically correct (what the fuck does that phrase even mean), regular people will generally agree that it’s not nice to call people things that they don’t want to be called, and it’s in society’s best interests to get along.
Politically correct means that something is phrased in terms of words and ideas the political elite have determined is acceptable. The political elite like to call things racist or sexist when they’re really just expertly worded. It’s a strategy to keep out opposing views. Since racism and sexism have no space in mainstream political discourse, anything that can be labeled racist or sexist can be driven out. Of course, plenty of racist or sexist things are allowed to stay in—so long as they only disparage non-protected groups. Saying nasty things about Islam is horrible—but Christianity doesn’t get the same protection.
I’m not in favor of saying nasty or unfair things about anybody or any group—but I am in favor of consistency.
if you’re gonna hate someone, do it for reasons that they have control over. instead of calling me a dumb bitch under your breath, call me an asshole, or a jerk. the difference is that you wouldn’t call a male blogger a bitch, only a woman, and that implies that i’m not “in my place” by telling you exactly what’s on my mind.
It’s that whole “implies” thing that causes problems for me. “Implies” says something about the motivation of the speaker. In reality, it’s others who are assuming that this is what was meant—even if that is manifestly not the case. If somebody hastily uses the wrong vicious term for a female blogger it’s been determined that they mean to put that blogger in her place. It also means that the person who used the wrong word is horribly regressive and needs to be driven from polite conversation. And anything else that person says can be disregarded.
tl;dr WHY DO CONSERVATIVES TALK ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. f—-ing NO ONE else does that! it’s like conservatives WANT to call people ———- and ——- and ———- all the time. go ahead—but don’t expect anyone to ——ing like you.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think conservatives just want their words to be interpreted according to the intended meaning rather than some code maintained by the educated and powerful who change what words are acceptable and what aren’t every few years to ensure that only people they like get to be taken seriously.
Are you a libertarian?
No. I’m a conservative.
A lot of people get the two confused. Libertarians and conservatives agree on some things. We’re both very skeptical of social programs. We believe the best governments are small and local. We believe that bureaucracy invites waste. Libertarians believe these things because they like things that they see as individual liberties. Conservatives believe them because they’re true.
Libertarians and Conservatives tend to diverge on issues like national defense, drug laws, and the things people lump together under “socially conservative.” Libertarians generally want to legalize drugs and throw the borders wide open, regardless of the affects these actions might have on communities. The also tend to be pretty naive when it comes to protecting the country. Criminals and terrorists don’t respect civil liberties. We can’t treat them with kid gloves.
I don't get feminist blogs
At least, I don’t get the comments threads. I suppose anybody is allowed to have a blog about whatever they want. But I don’t understand the comments threads where there is an unwritten rule that nobody is allowed to say anything the expected audience might disagree with.
It’s like an exercise in politically-correct hopscotch. If you accidentally step on the wrong line, ten people get angry and link you to the feminism 101 site where you can read about how to be a better person next time. Once you’ve educated yourself on what arguments are and are not appropriate, maybe you can be allowed back into the Dystopian Kindergarten where everybody agrees and everybody is careful to only say nice things to each other—until somebody breaks the rules. Then it’s a crisis.
You see, I tend to believe that part of being conservative is wanting the law to be followed. State law in Alaska gives specifics on how to count write-in votes and Federal law backs up the state law.
Miller isn't giving up; he's going to take it to the Supreme Court if it's not settled in Alaska. And he should; the law should be followed.
I didn't know wanting the law to be upheld made me less of a conservative.
There’s nothing un-Conservative about wanting the law to be followed. But wanting to interpret a law in a way that leads to people’s votes being thrown out raises serious questions about whether you believe in democracy. And that’s what raises questions about you being a conservative. On the right, we don’t believe in using lawyers to steal elections.
The law says that a vote “shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.” If somebody wrote “Merkowski,” “Murkowsky,” or “Murcowski,” they’ve written Lisa Murkowski’s last name. They’ve misspelled it—but the intention is completely unambiguous.
If I gave you a check made out to “Alex Holzebach” the bank would take it. The misspelling doesn’t mean I haven’t written your name. And, unless you wanted to be particularly obnoxious, you wouldn’t insist that the check had been written to some other person.
An election isn’t a spelling bee—and trying to disenfranchise those without some elitist education that allows them to spell Murkowski correctly is fundamentally not conservative. And your view here isn’t really about wanting the law to be followed. If the roles were reversed, you wouldn’t say that this was about wanting the law to be followed. Selective application of a restrictive interpretation of the law is not conservative.
Judge Dismisses Miller's Claims; Murkowski to be Announced Winner in Alaskan Senate Race →
online.wsj.com
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Republican Joe Miller and lifted a stay on certification of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, clearing the way for Sen. Lisa Murkowski to be declared the winner.
The ruling Tuesday means Alaska state officials are likely to make the November election results official on Thursday. If that happens, Ms. Murkowski will be sworn in when the new term of Congress convenes next week.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline’s dismissal of Mr. Miller’s lawsuit, which had challenged the handling of the election, is another major setback to Mr. Miller’s hopes of overturning the results.
The tea-party favorite, who beat Ms. Murkowski in the GOP primary only to see her continue her candidacy via a write-in campaign, has said that he could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
I must say, Joe Miller does have the upper hand in this argument. That is, if you want to follow the law:
Alaskan statute 15.15.360. states a vote “shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.” (Emphasis added.) It adds “there are no exceptions” to this statute; “A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.” As I have previously noted, the Edgmon decision does not affect write-in ballots, and Article I, section 4, of the U.S. Constitution requires, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” (Emphasis added.) The governing authority in this dispute is legislative statute, not an unrelated court case.
As this clearly shows, Joe Miller’s argument is right; unless each vote is correctly spelled and “bubbled” in, the vote cannot count. Murkowski is arguing that voter’s intent is what truly matters, but the law is quite clear.
Miller has said he will take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary and I’d support such an endeavor. The law is clearly set out by both federal and state legislation and is in no way unconstitutional. Although the laws may be amended in the future, they must stand as-is for now and thus Murkowski’s incorrectly-filled votes should not count.
We’ll just have to see what happens.
Lisa Murkowski is your typical RINO, similar to Olympia Snowe of Maine. Although Snowe ended up voting against Obama’s health care bill, she once supported it and also voted for the stimulus. Similar votes would have probably come from Murkowski as well.
Joe Miller, on the other hand, is a true conservative who was against all of Obama’s failing bills. He supports taking actions to lower the deficit and lower government spending.
It was unfortunate that Alaska voted to retain Murkowski in office. Hopefully, there will be some sort of breakthrough that may give Miller a second chance. If not, even though Murkowski will caucus with Republicans, Alaska elected an independent who is more worried about her job than the people of Alaska (or the United States).
Quite the disappointment.
(But I still smile wide when I see that red map of the United States.)
Do you really think Miller would be living up to his conservative principles when he tries claim victory despite the clear will of the plurality of Alaskans? I don’ think conservatives have room for ignoring elections.
The relevant part of the U.S. Constitution is, of course, the 17th Amendment, which governs the election of Senators. And Miller’s case is a loser. He’s doing the right thing in giving up. Courts are generally very, very reluctant to overturn the result of an election on a technicality.
Conservativism is not just about being on the winning team. It’s about principles. And there’s no room in conservativism for ignoring the clearly expressed will of the people when you don’t like it.
