Thursday, January 28, 2010
Breaking News / Woods Morning Roundup: Reaction to the President's Speech and More
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:25 AM
"I do believe that we must take a serious look at reforming health care. I don't think the atmosphere probably is here today, and so therefore it will probably have to wait for another Congress or another president to do."Democratic Party chair Chip Forrester will qualify for a $25,000 bonus if Democrats take back either the state House or Senate or win the governor's race. We hope he bought a lottery ticket too. ... Is Marsha Blackburn "throwing the tea party movement under the bus"? ... The May Town Center is back. ... And Gail Kerr explains why. ... Metro schools director Jesse Register discloses locations for three new magnets. ... Cynthia Tucker on the political suicide of Harold Ford Jr. ... House resolution honoring Bart Gordon turns partisan. ... The Commercial Appeal takes a stand against silliness:
Political grandstanding in the name of state sovereignty has a long and colorful history. It's being abused once again by Tennessee politicians who can rail against the federal government like it was 1962. But do Tennesseans want the General Assembly spending time on legislation -- like Rep. Matthew Hill's bill to make it a criminal act to contract for work on Interstate 69 -- that will never pass?
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
Obama's speech was both delusional and thuggish and it was embarassing watching the networks try to spin it. The worst moment was when he attacked the Supreme Court and then the pundits criticized Justice Alito for his "lack of decorum" for mouthing what was true: Obama was not telling the truth about the court's decision last week. Someone needs to tell Obama to go back and read the history of FDR's attempt to intimidate the court and what lasting damage it did to him.
like
dislike
Senor,
He was not telling the truth? See page 42 of the opinion, in which the court specifically says that the ruling (allowing corporations full First Amendment rights) applies to all corporations under the statute, including foreign corporations. Also, remember that a number of "American" corporations are actually foreign-owned. Obama was right on the money, and you'd think that Republicans would be alarmed as well.
Sorry Senor, I concur with jr. Obama was absolutely correct in his statements regarding that decision. That decision opens the flood gates to corporate money taking over our government even more than they already do. People need to stop hiding under the "free speech" argument on this one.
Pretty bad speech last night but Vandy wins a good one. Vols lack of depth big problem. The view of choice, BTW.
Health care completely screwed by Dems. They should take all the blame and they seem to be running for cover, BO included. Parts unconstitutional, no univeral coverage etc.
Now BO has gone to S. Fla to push job creation; high speed rail the big thing. Tampa to Orlando. This project will tke years to get off the ground. Gov't regulation, tree huggers, small animal law suits, right of way, on it goes. High speed won't work on existing track as freight travel must be preserved.
"Obama's speech was both delusional and thuggish and it was embarassing watching the networks try to spin it. The worst moment was when he attacked the Supreme Court and then the pundits criticized Justice Alito for his "lack of decorum" for mouthing what was true: Obama was not telling the truth about the court's decision last week. Someone needs to tell Obama to go back and read the history of FDR's attempt to intimidate the court and what lasting damage it did to him."
The three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. It's amusing to see the leftists spluttering outrage about Alito recation to Obama as if it were perfectly fine for Obama to attack the court and none of the justices were supposed to have any reaction to that.
And of course Obama was indeed wrong about it.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/28/alitos-not-true-moment
"The three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. It's amusing to see the leftists spluttering outrage about Alito recation to Obama as if it were perfectly fine for Obama to attack the court and none of the justices were supposed to have any reaction to that."
Nice Gilbert, always posting links to right-wing opinion blogs and websites. Just because it's printed by Reason, doesn't make it so Gilbert.
Anyways, your quote is amusing considering it was the Bush administration that really pushed the idea that the executive branch was superior to the others, and Alito and Roberts were picked in part because they produced opinions concurring with that. So your revisionist history notwithstanding, you're still wrong.
The 3 branches of gov't are co-equal. The POTUS should not have gone that way. It simply shows his hubris and arrogance which is lapped up on this left wing blog.
I may decide not to post here in the future. Maybe I'll take GM with me.
BTW, Chris, what about the Sotoymayor or whatever her name is, appointment. A true left wing jurist. Picked only on the basis of her politics, sex and dusky color.
"The 3 branches of gov't are co-equal. The POTUS should not have gone that way. It simply shows his hubris and arrogance which is lapped up on this left wing blog."
John, again, it was the Bush administration that pushed for a rebirth of the imperial presidency. Both Roberts and Alito were largely picked on their concurrence with this. They ARE NOT, I repeat are not, small-government, states-rights jurists. If you were intellectually honest, you would understand this. Time and time again the Bush administration snubbed their noses at Congress.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/legacy.html
Before you start with the "pbs is liberal" claptrap, there are plenty of other sources out there for your googling perusal.
Here's a nice quote John (and Gilbert):
"This administration is going to be gone, starting in 2009. But the historical record of what it's done … in which it's taken actions based on its very aggressive, previously marginal theories about a president's ability to circumvent checks and balances, to act in defiance of laws and treaties and so forth -- by taking actions based on these theories, it's converted the theory into historical facts which future presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be able to cite when they also want to take actions that seem to be prohibited by laws and treaties in order to impose their own agenda on the country and world, whatever that agenda may be.
What this administration has achieved, regardless of these short-term fights that we're going to see in this last year with the Congress, is very likely a highly successful, permanent, long-term expansion of the institutional powers of the presidency and a retilting of the balance of power toward the White House, in Washington, for the future. ..."- Charlie Savage
Before you attack the messenger, what about this is incorrect John? I'd love to hear your opinion.
I have little to say other than secession of the Old Confederacy with a common defense and currency. You could move up north and leave me alone. Sort of an American European Union without their collectivists notions. Jailing holocaust deniers etc.
As for a brief answer, Czars, out of control taxes/spending and regulations, the list is long.
Not only that what has your president accomplished with his Dem congress?
As for the messenger. as for my opinion, I always defer to GM. He seems to poke you in the eye far better than I.
"I may decide not to post here in the future. Maybe I'll take GM with me."
Say it ain't so! Oh, the humanity!
The neocons (the emphasis is on "cons") toadying under Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and Rep. Jason Mumpower are busily working toward the fateful day that a conservative U.S. Supreme Court will overturn one particularly offensive ruling of a prior Court and make it legal for one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater - first provided at the time that you are legally permitted you carry your firearm into someone else's business establishment while directing the aim of other neocons toward suspected and/or imagined liberals...
"Political grandstanding in the name of state sovereignty has a long and colorful history. It's being abused once again by Tennessee politicians who can rail against the federal government like it was 1962. But do Tennesseans want the General Assembly spending time on legislation -- like Rep. Matthew Hill's bill to make it a criminal act to contract for work on Interstate 69 -- that will never pass."
At first glance, I thought that "1962" was a typo for "1862", until I recalled that Republicans of that earlier political era were actually striving to save the Union.
Rep. Matthew Hill is a putz.
2003 U.S. Govt psych study concludes conservatives are neurotic mental cases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=179x5021
It is easy to spot Rep. Matthew Hill's supporters walking through the courthouse square in Jonesborough --- these folks are the ones wearing the tin foil hats:
Tenn. politician wants work on I-69 to be a felony
Roads & Bridges
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Tenn-politician-wants-work-on-I-69-to-be-a-felony-newsPiece20016
Rep. Hill introduces legislation aimed at breaking any link to Canada, Mexico
January 27, 2010
In a bizarre twist of politics, a lawmaker in the state of Tennessee is trying to make it a crime to work on I-69.
Rep. Matthew Hill has introduced House Bill 2785, which will make it a Class E felony under Tennessee’s criminal code for anyone at the Tennessee DOT to knowingly enter in any contract for work on I-69. Apparently, Hill wants to prevent the route from linking Canada, U.S. and Mexico.
“The whole purpose is to keep our state sovereignty intact,” Hill told The Commercial Appeal. “I’m not against roads. I’m against ceding over our state sovereignty to international authority.”
The people who live around the I-69 corridor, however, view any highway work as a way to bust out of the troubled economy, even if it would serve as a temporary fix.
State Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris said I-69 is a critical link in the interstate system and did not believe Hill’s measure would pass.
Rep. Hill is now the educational outcome posterboy of TN homefoolin'.
"Anyways, your quote is amusing considering it was the Bush administration that really pushed the idea that the executive branch was superior to the others,"
No that would be FDR - who tried to pack the the Supreme Court when they wouldn't rubber stamp the Constitutionaliy of some of his New Deal programs
"Nice Gilbert, always posting links to right-wing opinion blogs and websites. Just because it's printed by Reason, doesn't make it so Gilbert."
Reason is a libertarian organization - not a "right wing" one.
And yes it is so that Obama was flat out wrong about overturning a century old precedent - as the quote from Linda Greenhouse writing in the New York Times that was imbedded in that Reason article I linked to confirms and has been detailed elsewhere as well - as in today's Wall Street Journal.
And he was wrong with his foreign corporations crack as well - as has also been detailed in multiple places.
In short, as is usually the case, you don't know what you're talking about.
What do you suppose will be of the GOPers back home when they realize that their spineless Rep. Matthew Hill has sold them all out and that Rep. Matthew Hill now cedes Tennessee TN sovereignty to NAFTA I-69 SUPERHIGHWAY:
West Tennessee members of the TNGA make Rep. Matthew Hill back down like a scared little girl...
I-69 legislation hits wall of opposition from lawmakers
http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=36685
Posted: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 9:04 pm
Here’s a novel approach to opposing a public project: Pass a law that makes it a felony for state employees to work on it. That’s what state Rep. Matthew Hill of East Tennessee did recently when he filed a bill in the state House of Representatives that would make it a felony for state Department of Transportation employees to work on the proposed Interstate 69. Part of the massive highway project would run through West Tennessee.
As you might imagine, Hill’s bill ran into opposition. Paramount among the opponents are two locally elected officials — state Sen. Roy Herron of Dresden and state Rep. Judy Barker of Union City. Mrs. Barker said that when they heard of Hill’s bill, many of their constituents expressed concern about the proposed new interstate highway. “So I’m sending out an update,” she said. Because construction of I-69 is crucial to the long-term economic development goals of northwest Tennessee, it is a matter of great public interest. Therefore, Mrs. Barker plans to keep constituents informed on its advancement.
Herron said he contacted Hill and expressed his opposition to the bill. “I talked to Rep. Hill. He promised me he would not pursue the bill as filed,” Herron said. “Before the conversation ended, he told me, ‘I love I-69. I love all interstates. I love all asphalt and concrete.’”
