Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods Yes Kleinheider, There Is a Radical Right
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Comments (24)
Showing 1-24 of 24
Woodsie,
Just because YOU can make the case doesn't mean that Chip can -- especially since many of the issues you cited above got support from Democrats.
Yes, the Republicans have over-reached badly in the legislature, but it will be very difficult for the Dems to call them out for it without damaging the Doug Jacksons of the world. Not that that would be a bad thing.
like
dislike
Unfortunately, Ornot hit the nail on the head. TNGOP is a bunch of right wing zealots, but when Doug Jackson and Roy Herron are pushing guns in bars, how do the Democrats make that case?
Good question, Ashley. We can say for sure that Roy Herron doesn't. He's for guns in bars. He's in the middle of a growing controversy for his anti-labor votes and for, possibly, being dishonest. And a quick Google search turns up the fact that Herron passed a law mandating a state-sponsored Bible course in our schools. He's about as right wing as Ron Ramsey.
Ben,
A quick search in American history will show that public schools had prayer and Bible classes for years and yet religious diversity flourished. Hence the large numbers of people with diverse religious traditions who came here.
It was only when the Supreme Court decided to read the First Amendment in a remarkably narrow way that this became a divisive issue.
Mr. Woods' assertion that the Republicans opposed labor union organizing is simply unabashed dishonesty. The bill in question effectively ends the right of workers to vote by secret ballot on whether to join a union or not.
Opposing socialism makes you a right wing radical?
You really had to broaden the definition of radical, didn't ya?
"A quick search in American history will show that public schools had prayer and Bible classes for years and yet religious diversity flourished. Hence the large numbers of people with diverse religious traditions who came here."
And it was unconstitutional. Period. It was also a bad thing for religion because the last thing religion needs is for it to be backed by government. Religion is stronger when it is not at the center of government/political life, otherwise it becomes a cultural religion. A quick search in world history will show you that Mark.
"Opposing socialism makes you a right wing radical?"
Problem is, Wizard, is that these same guys didn't protest when Bush and Reagan before were increasing the size of the federal government to unprecedented levels. It's only a socialist when it's a Democrat with a funny name, isn't it?
You forgot to mention the state sovereignty nuts and the anti-global warming nuts who want to make sure we don't participate in federal cap-and-trade legislation which doesn't exist yet.
Are there any state Democrats that actually, like, believe in liberalism?
I'd say Andy Berke is probably the only one.
wizarpc would know real socialism if it smacked him on the ass. All he knows how to do is repeat Rush talking points.
Chris1974,
It was not unconstitutional until the Court ruled. And that doesn't mean the Court was correct.
If it was so bad for religion, please explain why religions of all sorts were able to thrive in America.
To be sure, Church and State relations in America have never been perfect and there were abuses. But the effort to remove religion from American public life has only worsened the relationship between Church and State.
Besides, the First Amendment deals with the establishment of a state religion like the Church of England, not nativity scenes on public property, prayer in schools or other similar activities.
Ditto on the Bible class, Chris1974.
Thanks for the talking points from Rush on the EFCA, Mark. It's about fairness. Employees are the ones voting on whether or not they should organize; therefore, employees, not the employers, should choose the method of the election.
Back to the original topic, I'll ask again, how is the Tennessee Democratic Party going to argue that Republicans are right wing radicals when at least one Democrat running to be the party's statewide standard bearer in the General Election, votes like a right wing radical?
All he knows how to do is repeat Rush talking points.
Cool, I'm channelling Southern Beale.
To allow prayer in schools or courthouse Ten Commandments is to implicity support one religious interpretation over other. End of story. Otherwise, what's the point? No, really - what's the point?
To honor our founders, those asshole pilgrims and the slaveowning humanist nation-builders? Tradition is a cheap excuse only trotted out when one wants to irrationaly hold onto something that they rationally know does no active good and serves no real purpose.
Ben,
That sounds nice. Did you get that talking point from Rachel Maddow or the AFL-CIO?
The truth is that the card check system lets union organizers know which employees do not want to be forced into joining a union. What is fair about that? With a secret ballot, workers are safe to express their view.
Card check isn't an election. It is 'sign the card or else.'
And before you get all weepy about the importance of unions, take a look at the current mess in the Legislature where a union is holding up legislation on charter schools for poor children.
Is Mayor Dean some sort of radical right-winger for supporting the bill? How about the Democratic legislator who supports the bill but cannot vote for it because of the political clout of the TEA has his party invoking a unit rule? What about the millions of dollars in federal education dollars that we stand to lose all to placate one union? So now tell me about the poor powerless unions who only want to do good. Please...
The truth is that many unions are declining because workers realize that leadership is more interested in power and perks than the good of workers. And now you want to take away their secret ballot?
Ashley,
So why didn't America become Iran around 1860 or even 1929?
Tradition can be a barrier. But it IS the base on which we build. Change does not always mean progress. Change otften replaces one problem with others, often worse ones.
Given the choice between Edmund Burke and Maxime Robspierre, I will take Burke every time.
Mark, so anything that the courts didn't rule on at whatever time in American history was perfectly OK just because they hadn't ruled on it yet? That's your logic? We can split hairs all we want. I think church/state separation is a very good thing. Religion has and always will have a place in public life but that doesn't mean the schools, or government in general, should implicitly endorse any one religion. I'm a Christian, but I'm not whining about not being able to have prayers in public schools. It's a complete non-issue. Raise your kids in whatever faith tradition you see fit but don't expect the schools to do it for you and don't expect the government to endorse it.
B.S., Ben, the current system is about employer coercion and intimidation, and charter schools are a separate issue. It's not about labor. It's about uniform standards for public schools and charter schools . . .
But back to the topic of the thread. No one has answered my question. How can Tennessee Democrats complain about radical Republicans and support Roy Herron, who votes like a radical Republican, for governor?
It's amusing to see a radical leftist like Woods attempt to set himself up as the official surveyor of the parameters of the political spectrum.
Keep on flailing away.
Chris,
Regarding the Court, I was making the point that Constitutionality is ultimately determined by the Court. To be sure there are decisions I think were incorrect or even morally wrong. Dred Scott and Plessy are two. If you don't like a decision, there is a process for amending the Constitution.
Ben,
The charter schools in this bill are public schools.
And card check won't result in intimidation?
What color are the skies in Benland? Or is that Bedlam?
"Regarding the Court, I was making the point that Constitutionality is ultimately determined by the Court. To be sure there are decisions I think were incorrect or even morally wrong. Dred Scott and Plessy are two. If you don't like a decision, there is a process for amending the Constitution."
Of course, but that's the job of the court. Yes, technically speaking, it was ok, even though it went against what the founders wanted, because the court hadn't ruled yet. So the court ruled (correctly in my opinion) and that's that. Slavery wasn't ok before the government acted to end it. Yes, technically speaking, it was legal, but it went against the Bill of Rights. I could go on and on with this but I won't. Point is, if your faith is strong, you shouldn't need the government to endorse it for you. If it can't stand by itself, than you have bigger issues.
And back to the topic at hand, the current crop of legislators seem to be more caught up in the culture wars of the nineties instead of trying to govern the state. Its like the Republican majority, after having chomping at the bit to join in on the culture wars but couldn't, now are making up for it as the rest of the country is moving on. You know, who's more 2nd Amendment, who says the word "Socialism" the most, calls for Obama to show his birth certificate, so on and so on. And the Democrats are running scared and joining in because they are afraid they will lose next time around.
except for the fact that I don't listen to Rush, southern beale really got me there, didn't she?
Can't attack the message? Attack the messenger. It's right there in the "lefty blogger's handbook."
"Can't attack the message? Attack the messenger. It's right there in the "lefty blogger's handbook."
What message? Oh, the one about opposing socialism makes one a radical. No, obsessing with culture war makes one a radical. Not going to "tea parties" when Bush was taking away our civil liberties and growing the size and scope of the federal government and waiting until Barack Hussein Obama became president to finally bemoan "socialism". That makes one a radical, and a partisan one at that. That's why very few people take you guys seriously.
