Topic: The Essential Question in Any Political Debate

[jpatrickham]

Alexander's Essay – September 1, 2011
 
The Essential Question in Any Political Debate

The most important inquiry conservatives must posit in every policy debate: "What does our Constitution authorize and mandate?"

"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

The most vital debate of the 2012 political cycle, indeed the essential question in any political debate, is one that you will not hear much about unless you are represented by one of the authentic conservatives who have carried the banner of the Reagan Revolution into the 21st century, or you are represented by one of those much-maligned Tea Party "radicals."


http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/09/01/the-essential-question-in-any-political-debate/

[Pandora]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

[LadyVirginia]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

 

[AmericanPatriot]

I like Alexander.

[Libertas]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

I've made that point myself.

Sad, isn't it.  When one side is absent from battle the victory is handed to the enemy on a silver platter.

Drives

Me

Fricken

Nuts

!

!

!

 

[CatholicCrusader]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

And exactly how much of a difference do you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months.  

[Pandora]

Three words:  Debt. Ceiling. Raise.

[jpatrickham]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

And exactly how much of a difference to you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months. 

God willing, all of it!

[RickZ]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

And exactly how much of a difference to you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months. 

Duels in Weehawken, NJ at dawn.

/It worked for Aaron Burr.  For Alexander Hamilton, not so much.

[CatholicCrusader]

And exactly how much of a difference do you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months. 

Three words:  Debt. Ceiling. Raise.

A little naive my friend.

True, they could have gone balls out blocked it, and maybe lost the White House in 2012 because of the massive negative press that would have resulted.

The idea is to win the war, not win a battle and lose the war.

[CatholicCrusader]

May I just point out here that the House Republicans read aloud the Constitution (parts of it, anyway) when their session began and it's made no difference that I can see.

And exactly how much of a difference do you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months. 

God willing, all of it!

Thats the goal, for sure
.
But sometimes discretion is the better part of valor....  ..or something like that.

Or, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day."

That battle would have cost dearly politically, and might have given the edge to Obama in 2012. Would that have been worth it?

[Glock32]

The point in bringing up their reading of the Constitution is that their behavior both before and since shows that little demonstration as nothing more than a sop to limited-government. The days when that sort of thing bought them enough good favor are over.

[IronDioPriest]

...A little naive my friend....

Just a friendly suggestion... Maybe get a lay of the land before calling admins or anyone else here "naive". Disagree with the point, and you've got no trouble. But we save our name-calling for the enemies of liberty, not our allies and friends.

Carry on.

 

[Pandora]

And exactly how much of a difference do you expect to be wrought by one half of one third of the government in six months. 

Three words:  Debt. Ceiling. Raise.

A little naive my friend.

True, they could have gone balls out blocked it, and maybe lost the White House in 2012 because of the massive negative press that would have resulted.

The idea is to win the war, not win a battle and lose the war.

The question was what good could their small amount of control have accomplished, and I answered.

I noticed a massive amount of negative press, and a lot of lies told about the Republican participants -- and the TEA Party -- and about the entire process, notwithstanding.  The Republicans caving the way they did, with the added injury of phony "cuts", angered and outraged the folks who not only will be seeing to winning the WH in '12, but how the enormous mess made out of this country will be handled thereafter.

[Janny]

Okay, I made a reply to CatholicCrusader, and apparently it got lost in the  internet ether. I'll try again, with a briefer version.


Maybe we will lose in 2012 because we did NOT go balls out on the debt ceiling.

Are you suggesting that what actually happened did not generate massive negative press?  We are not going to win battles or the war, if we do what we think will generate less negative press coverage.

We need to do what is RIGHT. That is what will help us win. Not worrying about how the press treats us. Worrying about how the press treats us is NEVER the right thing to do.

[CatholicCrusader]

Maybe we will lose in 2012 because we did NOT go balls out on the debt ceiling.

I suppose its possible, but I don't think the direction the polls were starting to shift supports that theory.

Are you suggesting that what actually happened did not generate massive negative press?

It did generate negative press, yes, but Obama bore a good portion of the bad press. Hence his rotten poll numbers.

[CatholicCrusader]

...A little naive my friend....

Just a friendly suggestion... Maybe get a lay of the land before calling admins or anyone else here "naive". Disagree with the point, and you've got no trouble. But we save our name-calling for the enemies of liberty, not our allies and friends...........

Oh man, I hate this stuff.
I thought the statement was naive. I didn't say the person was naive and I did not call anyone any names.

If this is a sign of things to come, maybe I'd better get out now.

You can delete my account.

[Weisshaupt]

The most important inquiry conservatives must posit in every policy debate: "What does our Constitution authorize and mandate?"

Liberals can't even understand that question (and to be fair most elected GOP only know enough to give lip service to the idea) . They all think the Constitution is old and irrelevant and won't even agree it should be followed - after all it was written by dead, racist, slave owning, white men, and it can therefore be disregarded.

The only way a liberal understands something is when it is couched in terms that affect him.

Ultimately it comes down to hitting them over and over and over again with Thomas Sowell's questions for destroying any liberal argument

1) At what Cost? (e.g. You want to spend $15 Trillion on an "insurance policy" against global warming?")
2) Compared to what?  (Woman are oppressed in the U.S.? What happens to them in the Muslim world)
3) Do you have any hard evidence of that? ( So, what research or facts lead you to that conclusion? You heard it on the Daily Show? And Al Gore said it? I see. Those aren't really facts so much as hearsay, huh?  What arguments did those guys make? None? Hmmm.  So what  are the opposing arguments? Never heard them huh? Doesn't being a free thinker require you to hear both sides and THEN make up your mind? )
4) Who is to decide? (Do you really want a man like GWB ( or Perry) in charge of your health care? No?  Then why did you  vote to give them that power? )

[Pandora]

...A little naive my friend....

Just a friendly suggestion... Maybe get a lay of the land before calling admins or anyone else here "naive". Disagree with the point, and you've got no trouble. But we save our name-calling for the enemies of liberty, not our allies and friends...........

Oh man, I hate this stuff.
I thought the statement was naive. I didn't say the person was naive and I did not call anyone any names.

If this is a sign of things to come, maybe I'd better get out now.

You can delete my account.

Easy now; no need for all this.

[Pandora]

The most important inquiry conservatives must posit in every policy debate: "What does our Constitution authorize and mandate?"

Liberals can't even understand that question (and to be fair most elected GOP only know enough to give lip service to the idea) . They all think the Constitution is old and irrelevant and won't even agree it should be followed - after all it was written by dead, racist, slave owning, white men, and it can therefore be disregarded.

The only way a liberal understands something is when it is couched in terms that affect him.

Ultimately it comes down to hitting them over and over and over again with Thomas Sowell's questions for destroying any liberal argument

1) At what Cost? (e.g. You want to spend $15 Trillion on an "insurance policy" against global warming?")
2) Compared to what?  (Woman are oppressed in the U.S.? What happens to them in the Muslim world)
3) Do you have any hard evidence of that? ( So, what research or facts lead you to that conclusion? You heard it on the Daily Show? And Al Gore said it? I see. Those aren't really facts so much as hearsay, huh?  What arguments did those guys make? None? Hmmm.  So what  are the opposing arguments? Never heard them huh? Doesn't being a free thinker require you to hear both sides and THEN make up your mind? )
4) Who is to decide? (Do you really want a man like GWB ( or Perry) in charge of your health care? No?  Then why did you  vote to give them that power? )

Wasn't it Sowell who wrote something to the effect of/that many "problems" cannot be solved; there can only be trade-offs?