Is it just me, or has George Will veered far to the right in the last few years?
I used to read his column sporadically, it was a balanced and well written
advocacy of moderate conservatism. But lately he is coming off as a disgruntled
and dyspeptic sore loser. He is still well read and knowledgeable, but I
can't shake the feeling that now he is being very selective in his
arguments, using only facts that support his thesis while intentionally ignoring
those that do not.
These tea party guys want to defend the Constitution as interpreted by them, not
as interpreted by the courts which were set up to do just that under the
Constitution. Ironic, and huh?
Emajor, it's not just you.Will has tilted so far to the right
in the last five years that he's pretty much fallen down.Tea
Partiers chase their tails (spinning ever-tighter and faster to the right, of
course) so enthusiastically that while they celebrate their successes with
candidates like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee they are blind to the fact that rigid,
strident ideologues make terrible legislators.
The Tea Partiers seem set on establishing strong individual states at the
expense of the nation. What does that remind me of? Oh yes. The European
Union. How is that working out?
Re: "Tea Partiers . . . are blind to the fact that rigid, strident
ideologues make terrible legislators."By "rigid, strident,
ideologue," liberals mean, of course, someone who understands and plays by
the rules that made the United States great.They appear to prefer a
new, untouchable American nobility, composed of corrupt elitists whose highest
moral imperative is their next re-election bid.It's "rigid,
strident, ideologues" -- like George Washington, who refused royal powers
because he actually believed in the Constitution -- that have a chance to save
our Nation.NOT a leftist amen-chorus of snide, sophomoric, true
believers, beholden, because of trade-union, academic, or other selfish
rice-bowel issues, to a rigid and destructive anti-American orthodoxy.
It's a rarity that any nation retains its conservative heritage over any
extended period of time. History has shown us that, without exception,
democratic nations tend to expand the power of their national government as they
age. The US is no exception, and is in fact a shining example of that
phenomenon. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the US
Constitution was part of that trend. Today, the Constitution is a very different
document from what it was originally in spirit if not in word.For
that reason, I consider the Constitution to be a relic that has little relevance
to our lives today. The collusion of courts, legislatures and executive offices
have rendered it to be nothing more than something to refer to when it suits
politicians' purposes and to ignore when it doesn't. Discussions like
this are just so much wasted energy.
procuradorfiscal, Wow that was quite a rant. Feel better now?When you catch your breath maybe you could explain how attempting to
push America back to the 19th century is good for our country?Why
the Tea Party fixation on denying women the right to determine whether or not
they get pregnant?If the Tea Party is so concerned with the deficit,
why do their spending priorities include tax cuts for millionaires that,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, would instead balloon the
deficit?What's the Tea Party plan for dealing with families
with sick children being denied health insurance because of pre-existing
conditions?What's the Tea Party's jobs plan? What's the Tea Party's infrastructure plan?If tax cuts
are good for the economy, then why was the economy thriving with much higher
Reagan-era taxes, but tanking under the Bush tax cuts?Your rants
against "leftists" does not offer any useful insights to what you think
would be an effective response to the many challenges this nation faces.
How little respect the left shows to the people of America. They forget that
the PEOPLE wrote the Constitution. They forget that the Constitution limits
government and that government cannot limit people. The forget that the PEOPLE
told all three branches of government, the President, Congress and the Court,
that the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land and that neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the Court could legislate, enforce or rule that any
law could exceeded the limits prescribed by the People.They use the
argument that Presidents, Congresses and Courts have freely violated the
Constitution in the past; therefore, they tell us, the Constitution is
irrelevant.They learned in Texas that the Constitution is NOT
irrelevant. They learned yesterday, all across America in Chick-fil-A
restaurants, that the Constitution is NOT irrelevant. They will learn for
themselves in November that the PEOPLE will no longer permit them to ignore the
Constitution.Today they mock Mr. Will. Today they mock the People.
In November, when the PEOPLE fire the President and liberal members of Congress,
they will realize just how far they have drifted from Constitutional principles.
JThompson: "Today they mock Mr. Will. Today they mock the People."No, Mr. Thompson, we are, with substantial justification, mocking
self-righteous and willfully ignorant blowhards who think that screaming about
"elitists" constitutes meaningful dialog, and that evidence-based
realities that contradict personal beliefs can be treated as though they
To "Moderate" you have that backwards. The European Union sacrificed
the strength of the individual nations to give power to the EU. Just look at
Ireland. Much of the financial problems stem from the EU controlling monetary
policies. Had they been able to control it themselves, they would have been
able to raise interest rates and could have prevented their problemsThe thing that you and your ilk fail to recognize is the simple fact that it
was the lack of the massive government control that helped the US build up and
become a strong nation. For the first 150 year the US had a relatively weak
central government, and they prospered. Since then, we have had more power
given to the central government, and things are getting worse, not better.Just look at Europe, their collectivism has connected them together in
such a way that if one falls, it pulls all of them down at the same time. In
the US, we used to be set up in such a way that one could fall, and the others
would remain standing while lifting up the fallen.
Re: "Feel better now? Your rants . . . does [sic] not offer . . . effective
response to the many challenges this nation faces."Spoken like a
true Constitution-hating liberal.And, yes, I do feel better.The Nation WAS saved in 1912 from liberals like Blue, plaintively
demanding "solutions," to imaginary problems to justify scrapping the
Constitution, returning America to the rule of men, not law.Today's primary challenge is leftist reactionaries, bent on returning
America to pre-George III liberalism, where every decision -- what we study and
believe, where we live and work, what we consume, how much income is too much --
is made for us by our liberal "betters."Reality today?
Women, who want to, prevent or terminate pregnancies; Deficits are spending, not
revenue issues; Sick kids are treated; Jobs destroyed by deranged liberal
spending, are created by conservative fiscal responsibility; Infrastructure is
best planned, built, and paid for by users, not federal bureaucrats; and Tax
cuts are always good.As in 1912, the real crisis is liberals
creating crises to justify their cynical, political hustle.
Blue,Step back and think what you're saying. You seem to
forget that YOU are one of the people who is protected by the Constitution. You
pretend that somehow the government has gained the right to distribute RIGHTS to
the people. Who gave them that authority? I didn't. You didn't. Not
one citizen in America gave them that authority. We have a binding contract
that protects OUR interests from the government - and from those citizens who
know so little about the Constitution and its origin that they suppose that they
can get "favors" from the government.We, the People, hold
all power. We hold all rights. We hold all authority. Obama is
authorized to do ONLY what we have told him he can do in that contract. Congress is authorized to do ONLY what we have told it to do in that
contract. The Court is obligated to rule on the Constitutionality
of any law based ONLY on that contract and not by another court's
"precedent".When citizens abandon their responsibility to
personally protect the Constitution, they have become pawns of the government to
be used and abused by those in power.
procuradorfiscal: "Spoken like a true Constitution-hating liberal."Can you please get it through your head that people are politically
liberal because they >LOVE< the constitution? You need to
understand that there are plenty of intelligent, constitutionally literate
Americans who look at the GOP's blatant attempts to repress voters, force
fundamentalist religion into our science classrooms, deny women control over
their own bodies, exploit public resources for personal profit and create
sub-classes of citizenship based on sexual orientation and say, "That's
unconstitutional." It is precisely because I have carefully
studied and revere the constitution that speak up and point out that
conservative ideology is throwing acid on the Bill of Rights.And
JThompson - yes, I am a citizen protected by the Bill of Rights, just like you.
The difference is I expect those protections to apply to all of us, equally and
consistently. Nowhere have I ever said the government distributes rights. The government is responsible for enforcing _all_ of the Bill of Rights
- including those aspects, like a woman's right to control her own body,
that conservatives don't like.
To "Blue" you are wrong on every point that you have made.The GOP is trying to prevent voter fraud. I pointed out a couple of days ago
that in Colorado there were 5000 votes cast by illegal immigrants. In various
other states there are many cases of voting fraud going on. Why is it that the
DNC wants to maintain laws that allow voter fraud to be so easy?You
are wrong again on the bill of rights. The liberals want to bill of rights to
say what you can do, not what the government can't to. Remember the
liberal Judge who told Egypt to look at the South Africa constitution for
inspiration. The South Africa constitution states what people can do, not what
the government can't do.If liberals wanted to protect and apply
the rights consistently, why have they set up so many different classes of
people? They treat blacks one way, hispanics another, women another, the rich
another, gays get special treatment.As for womens rights to control
her own body. That is a lie. Ask women in NY if they can buy a 64 oz drink,
saturated fat, and salty foods.
Re: "Can you please get it through your head that people are politically
liberal because they >LOVE< the constitution?"Nope.It's just disingenuous liberal hype, to suggest that the
"government is responsible for enforcing _all_ of the Bill of Rights,"
then use liberal code for abortion as one of those important rights.As anyone who has ever read the Constitution can attest, it contains no stated
or implied right to abortion. Corrupt liberal judges just dreamed it up.First, they dreamed up a concept of "substantive due process"
under 14th Amendment [not part of the Bill of Rights, BTW]. Then they dreamed up
a "right of privacy" under that dreamed up concept. Finally, they
dreamed up a "penumbra" of that dreamed-up privacy right, under which
they "discovered" an hitherto hidden right to abortion.Ingenious, but disingenuous.Liberals know Americans don't
support their deranged socialist agenda, so they dreamed up a phony Constitution
that can be bent, on demand, to permit rule of men, not of law.That's the one they love.
To procuradorfiscal 8:30 a.m. Aug. 3, 2012I'm curious. The
Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution states that there are rights, not
enumerated in the Contitution, which are protected by the Constitution (quoting
the Ninth Amendment -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."). What do you think they are?