Some of them I think are red meat for the base (low-cost positions to take, since a DOMA amendment or abortion amendment would never have a chance to pass 3/4 of the states). Others, like a balanced budget amendment or repeal of the federal income tax (maybe in favor of something like a VAT tax) could be worth discussing.
So it’s a political question, just like everything else. There’s nothing inherently “Ooook!” about “oh noes, he wants to change our holy Constitution!”
I think there is when a candidate proposes wholesale change or repeal of seven amendments. Changing the Constitution should be a very rare thing, not a means for institutionalizing one party’s talking points. Oook.
It’s almost as if Perry’s a stealth Obama operative.
An unelectable candidate sows massive intra-party dissension by separating the base from the establishment.
If the Pubbies can win in 2012, they can win with Romney. Why throw away general election votes they could have gotten with a more moderate candidate?
Because 2008 put them off nominating the “electable” cndidate, so they are going with batshit crazy.
Exxcccelllent!
Well, it’s okay that he wants to make several amendments. The trouble is, his particular amendments create more problems then they solve. If he had seven rational amendments, no problem.
Constitutional amendments should protect individual rights, and limit the power of government. Same sex marriage ban and abortion ban amendments do the opposite, by reducing freedom and increasing the power of government. Very odd positions for conservatives who claim to support the original interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m sure they have no trouble internally reconciling it.
I’ve lived in Texas my entire life and I have never supported Rick Perry. The man is a true phony with dreams of leading our country…but I don’t want that at all. This particular post mirrors my opinions quite well. I know several people who would have lost their land to his Corridor plans and they despise him more than I do.
He is a member and supporter of what is known as the New Apostolic Reformation movement, which does away with the notion of a secular government, and can most aptly be described as the American Taliban, because they are in the purest sense, religious extremists. Their objective is something called the Seven Mountains of American Society. They are Family, Religion, Arts and entertainment, Media, Education Government and Business. They wish to take over America in Christianity’s name . Two pastors involved in this movement came to Rick Perry’s office, telling him that he was part of a chain of prophecies, and that Texas was the “Great Prophet State”. God had told them that Perry would help to usher in the Kingdom of God in the USA. I can only imagine what they might do if they succeed in their designs. They have Prayer Warriors that ride around and do things that would make even the most conservative evangelicals turn away in disgust. I can already see camps where they attempt to “save” Pro-Choicers, Freemasons, Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims,and anbody else they don’t like. They would throw out the Constitution and replace it with the Leviticus Laws. The Head of Church would be the Head of State. Marsha West is right. They are a “Damnable heresy”.
oh noes!
I refuse to vote for an extremist of any kind. Social, religious, political, whatever. These guys sit right in with the Westboro Baptist Church.
The Dems would love another George Bush debate.
Fortunately, four years later, more voters will have a realistic idea of what a clean, articulate, community organizer from Chicago is capable of.
Instead, what the voters have a realistic idea of, is what an obstructive Republican party can accomplish when they abandon what is good for the country in a single minded jihad for what is good for their party. We don’t need to summon Bush II when we have Republican leadership saying their number one job is to make Obama a one term president, even if it ruins the economy and makes life miserable for millions of Americans.
Which Republican leaders have said that? Names and precise quotes, please.
Mitch McConnell for one:
And, in clearer terms:
[QUOTE=McConnell]
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see anything in that quote saying that his “number one job is to make Obama a one term president, even if it ruins the economy and makes life miserable for millions of Americans.”
There is no question that Republicans want Obama to be a one-term president. Has there ever been a time when Congressional Democrats didn’t want a new Republican president to serve only one term? There is nothing new or shocking in that.
The problem is with Fear Itself’s allegation that Congressional Republicans have stated that they “will ruin the economy and make life miserable for millions of Americans in order to make Obama a one-term president.” No Republican leader I know of has said any such thing.
I never said they did.
Glad to have that cleared up.
But if making him a one-term president is in fact their single most important priority, that does imply that they’re willing to sacrifice anything else for it. That’s what “most important” means, after all: Getting Obama out of office is a higher priority than, for instance, sustaining the American economy.