Friday, November 22, 2013

Last Call For Profiles In Revanchist Nonsense

The conservative answer to "Reagan would have never been accepted in the GOP of today" is apparently "JFK would have never been accepted in the Democratic party of today", straight from the fever dreams of George F. Will.  His opinion on liberals and Kennedy:

For them, his conservative dimension is an inconvenient truth. Ira Stoll, in "JFK, Conservative," tries to prove too much but assembles sufficient evidence that his book's title is not merely provocative.

A Look magazine headline in June 1946 read: "A Kennedy Runs for Congress: The Boston-bred scion of a former ambassador is a fighting-Irish conservative."

Neither his Cold War anti-communism, which was congruent with President Harry Truman's, nor his fiscal conservatism changed dramatically during his remaining 17 years.

Visitors to the Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum here, on the salt water across which his ancestors came as immigrants and on which he sailed his yacht, watch Kennedy press conferences, such as that of Sept. 12, 1963, when, responding to a question about Vietnam, he said his policy was to "win the war there" — "That is why some 25,000 Americans have traveled 10,000 miles to participate in that struggle." He added: "We are not there to see a war lost."

His answer was consistent with a 1956 speech calling Vietnam "the keystone to the arch, the finger in the dike," adding: "This is our offspring — we cannot abandon it."

A few years later, with the war going badly, several Kennedy aides claimed that he had been planning to liquidate the intervention. But five months after the assassination, Robert Kennedy told an oral history interviewer that his brother "had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam."

Will basically argues that Kennedy would today be considered the George W. Bush of his time:  a scion of a wealthy New England family, a war and tax cut hawk, and a "compassionate conservative" who reached out to minorities.

Will is old enough to have been through Kennedy's presidency, and ought to know better than to overlook his stance on civil rights, the United Nations, nuclear proliferation, which got him labeled as a traitor by right-wing extremists.  Since 50 years later these are the folks now running the Republican party, I'm thinking JFK would be even less welcome there.

The Other Side Assesses The Nuclear Option

Allahpundit over at Hot Air sums up the GOP position on yesterday's Senate filibuster rules change vote:

It’s a 10-kiloton bomb, not a 10-megaton one: Supreme Court nominees will still require 60 votes for cloture before confirmation. The possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate pushing through pro-life justices is too horrifying to the left for them to risk changing the rules on SCOTUS appointments too. 
This doesn’t apply to legislation either, but so what? Once the precedent of weakening the filibuster in one context is set, it’s easy for either party to cite it in expanding that precedent to another context. My new mantra: 51 votes for repeal [of Obamacare].

I'm going to argue that was always the plan in case the Republicans win the Senate back in 2014, and that yes, while Democrats finally decided after five years to stop allowing Republicans to punch them in the face, I'm sure all sides agree that the second the GOP gets the Senate back, the filibuster is permanently gone. Again, my argument is that was going to happen anyway.

After all, a GOP controlled Senate is at this point, far, far more likely than another Republican president anytime soon.  That's something all sides agree on.

The Supremes Are "Over Roe"

Chuck Pierce makes the argument that Tuesday's 5-4 SCOTUS decision to refuse to block Texas's ridiculous anti-abortion law will be the basis of the eventual end of a woman's right to choose.

Once again, as it did in Citizens United and in Shelby County, a majority of the court determined to demonstrate to the nation that its members do not live in the same world with the rest of us. In Citizens United, we learned that, in the world where the majority of the court resides, unlimited corporate spending in our elections does not result in even "the appearance of corruption." In Shelby County, we learned that, in the world where the majority of the court resides, we have attained the Day Of Jubilee and institutional racism plays no significant role in the local laws governing elections. And yesterday, we learned that, in the world where the majority of the court resides, having no doctor legally capable of performing an abortion in 24 counties in a state the size of Texas does not place an "undue burden" on women who are attempting to exercise their constitutional right.

It's depressing to think about it.  Scalia's opinion is that there is "no special 'status quo' standard for laws affecting abortion." None.  So if a state wants to make it impossible to get one, that's a decision for the state to make, not the woman.

Lesser minded individuals will of course say "Well why do you have a problem with that, libtards?  Isn't that what Obamacare is?  The state making decisions for everyone on getting the safest health care?"  Sure, because the Affordable Care Act makes it impossible to get health care by making you jump through hoops.  The second there's a 24 hour waiting period and a doctor with surgical privileges required to get Viagra, this all would go away.

Meanwhile, Texas women will have to drive to New Mexico to get an abortion at this rate.


Related Posts with Thumbnails