jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (95 posts)

Tea Party Gone Wild in Montana

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Tea Party Montana Style--Nullification, Secession, and a Pistol in Every Pocket

    "With each new bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

    "Their state would be a place where officials can ignore US laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias. It's the tea party world." Matt Gouras, Associated Press, quoted in The Washington Spectator April 15, 2011.

    Lou Dubose editor of The Washington Spectator, examined the Tea Party's agenda in Montana where the Republicans attained a 68-32 majority in 2008. Representative Krayton Kerns is a Tea Party leader. He's the author of on of several "nullification" bills filed this session. They claim that it is within the constitutional authority of the "sovereign states" to nullify federal law. To assert that state right Kerns filed a bill that would nullify the Endangered Species Act which blocks access to "huge natural resources." Failure to comply with the ESA would require Montana to absorb a loss of $500 million in federal funds.

    Representative Michael More filed a more expansive 17-point declaration of sovereignty which asserts "the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state...and that right may never be delegazted to the United States." Any federal transgression would dissolve the compact with the United States and would dissolve the Union. Moore's resolution establishes a process for the creation of a new republic. After the Union is dissolved, a new nation can be created by a three-fourths vote of the states seeking to form a federal government. The vote shall not be binding on any state not seeking to form or join a federal government. More says "This is not just my thinking. It reflects the perspective of concerned constitutional groups here in Montana, citing the Tea Party and the Oath Keepers, policemen, fire fighters, military active and reserve and National Guard who pledge to refuse to obey any law or executive order they deem unconstitutional. They cite an opinion by Antonin Scalia in Mack v. United States which upheld a sheriff's refusal to comply with a federal law that required him to conduct background checks on handgun buyers. Scalia said that "there is dual sovereignty at both the state and federal level."

    Another 10th Amendment bill that passed the Montana house would strip the EPA of it's authority to regulate green house gas emissions. (The EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2007. Another bill introduced by Rep. Joe Read states that "global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana...and is a natural occurrence and human activity has not caused it." Read said "There was a lunatic side that battled me on it and there was the support side that just recognized that science is junk." Stripping the EPA of authority in Montana is intended to stop federal bureaucrats from inpeding the minerals-extraction permitting process.

    Republican Rep. Derek Skees filed a bill that would allow Montana to reclaim federal land within its boundaries.

    Other Tea Party bills that easily passed the Montana house conferred the full benefits of citizenship on fetuses; a required that all state transactions be conducted exclusively in gold or silver; dozens of gun bills, including one that allows anyone who is not a felon or mentally incompetent to carry a concealed weapon without a licensing process; a bill that would require FBI agents to pre-clear operations with county sheriffs; and a bill that would create and arm a state militia.

    [Source: Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator.]

    1. DTR0005 profile image85
      DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Admittedly this is a rhetorical question, but seriously - is the country losing its mind? I am in my mid-40's and I really feel like I am caught in a bad dream.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Me, too! The inmates are running the asylum.

        1. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          yeah, Florida has recently made it legal to pay off legislators, with Rick Scott running the state. He won the election because he's part of the billionaire Koch Brothers anti-Obama agenda. He promised jobs in a state with double digit unemployment, and then turned around and slashed and eliminated jobs. Now, many Floridians who voted for him, and trusted him, (why I'll never figure out) are so angry with what he is and isn't doing. People need to turn off the propaganda and get involved with local political efforts.

          http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/s … le/1159953

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Montana has got it right.   The TEA Party is right, correct, and your radical ideology has been discredited long ago.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You are the radical, so far out in right field that you're out of sight, and I'm the conservative by comparison.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry, you're wrong...about everything.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why would you say that? You are trying to reverse 300 years of legislative and Supreme Court case history. Your views are extremely radical. I say perfect what we have, discard what doesn't work and what's not needed. You want to throw the babies out with the bath. Your views are those of a tiny minority among educated, thoughtful Americans. Uneducated, uninformed Americans are being manipulated to slit their own throats by the oil billionaires, insurance parasites, and banksters, et al.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You are wrong about absolutely everything.   I have never seen someone so fanatically determined to ignore reality, and embrace fanaticism, idiocy, and radical ideology as you.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X1UjTQn6PN4/TQv5JdgdGBI/AAAAAAAAAFc/RUZj1TSmrnc/s1600/Into%2BThe%2BMirror.jpg

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL! 

                  http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbDiTyp1f-_K6LB9jpDQslaQGOpLiYARe2cgs2RK_hW_yeD3WxiA

                2. weholdthesetruths profile image61
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, look, it's a reflection of Deed's brain.    Oh, wait, it's blank... but I repeat myself....

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      sweet! I'm gonna look for a job in Montana!

      1. DTR0005 profile image85
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Foreign language teachers aren't in high demand- believe me, I know.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Well not for teaching anyway lol

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Good luck with that.  smile

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, and have very very very safe sex! No mistakes, no accidents, no life that sometimes happens.
          Errr, well unless you went to another state......but that's even hard to find these days.
          What with all this Freedom, and all. SNARK

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You've lived there for years; still no job?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          QUICK!!! SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY!!

          ARREST HIM!

    4. pat.henry1776 profile image58
      pat.henry1776posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Was this really unexpected? The federal government has expanded its scope and reach beyond the boundaries of the constitution and no longer rules by the consent of the people. According to the Declaration of Independence:

      "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

      In other words if you don't govern by the consent of the people then the people will have a right to form a government that will.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "The federal government has expanded its scope and reach beyond the boundaries of the constitution and no longer rules by the consent of the people. "

        No, it hasn't. The federal government has developed in response to changing conditions and needs of it's citizens through legislation adopted by our duly elected representatives. The constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine what laws are constitutional, not a bunch of jackasses running around in the woods with military weapons, or ignorant Montana Tea Tard legislators.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          In some ways, it has, in others it hasn't. The Fed can and does (but shouldn't!) listen to our private phone conversations if they think we might maybe be talking to a terrorist without showing probable cause and getting a warrant. That's clearly beyond the scope of their power. The Fed is trying to regulate the amount of pollution that a corporation is allowed to emit into the environment. This is a Good Thing, as it defends the populace from the excesses of folks who have more to gain by dumping their waste on strangers rather than carefully (and expensively) disposing of it.

          Some of what the gov't does is excessive; some is necessary and proper. The trick is being able to tell the difference. Neither the far right nor the far left can tell the difference.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Point well taken. I agree.

        2. pat.henry1776 profile image58
          pat.henry1776posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The Supreme court has the power to decide if legislation is constitutional or not. It doesn't have the power to reinterpret the constitution using case law precedent and its own political views to justify those decisions. An example is the recent decision to throw out years of case law involving the commerce clause in a decision to prohibit the sale of body armor to certain individuals. This ruling gives police powers to congress which essentially gives them the right to outlaw anything like french fries for example.
          These kinds of decisions are the ones that will force states to exercise their constitutional power and nullify laws passed by a government out of control as they did with real id for example.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Nullification is a non-starter for a variety of reasons. Remember the Civil war?

  2. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    It's the Apocalypse!
    And they know it (Beckles,etc).
    They are trying to usurp it for their Cult.

    "They cite an opinion by Antonin Scalia in Mack v. United States which upheld a sheriff's refusal to comply with a federal law that required him to conduct background checks on handgun buyers."

    ----Something just like this was in one of the riders the GObaggers attached to the CR!

    Scalia is a Tea-Bag, as is Thomas! Can we say Conflict of Interest?? Can we say NON impartial??
    Can we say....get em outta there!!!

    They rule for the Kochamamies! The Kochamunga's. The Kochs*ckers.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    This is absolutely brilliant! Let all the Tea Partiers move to Montana. It's a big state. There's plenty of room for them all.
    Since Montana is declaring itself sovereign, they don't get any federal protection or benefits. No problem. Let them decline. More money for the rest of the USA.

    I've said this before and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I am NOT a Constitutional scholar.
    But, it doesn't tak a genius to understand the meaning of UNITED. As in, the UNITED States of America. It doesn't say the 50 individually sovereign states of America. It says UNITED states.
    In order to form a more perfect UNION (another "u" word that means collective, together, whole is greater than the sum of its parts, etc.).

    So why then, are the very people who claim to uphold the Constitution, being selective about upholding it?

    1. DTR0005 profile image85
      DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well Mighty Mom, you are one of the very FEW on the forums who aren't, among other things, constitutional lawyers, economists, and captains of industry.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No kidding! All them baggers know the Constytution! Why they read it erry night fore bed-time.

        "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord to get rid of the 14th and 17th amendments. Amen"

        ps: This is my Clampett imitation (sincerest form of flattery): Jethro, to be exact. Or maybe Granny??

      2. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You left out world-travelling and thus an expert on what all other countries in the world think about America! But hey, when you're already as inadequate as I am in the other areas, who's counting?? lol

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Since Montana is declaring itself sovereign, they don't get any federal protection or benefits. No problem. Let them decline. More money for the rest of the USA."

      Its always about money for you libs.

      Get a job.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Another state says "Thanks but no thanks" to federal money (channeling AK Gov. Palin and the bridge to nowhere?)
    How much are they turning down? $54 million, to be exact, for a mandate they will still have to implement, but now using only state-private funding. Oh, and like so many other states, OK is brOKe!

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Gov. Mary Fallin reversed course Thursday by rejecting a $54.6 million federal grant to help create a health insurance exchange for uninsured Oklahoma residents that is required by the new federal health care law.

    The Republican, who previously said she would accept the money, said legislative leaders have agreed to consider using state and private funds to create the Health Insurance Private Enterprise Network.

    [So they're going forward with a health insurance exchange anyway, but refusing money from the feds. And this is fiscally responsible to Oklahomans HOW???]

    Fallin noted that legislation adopted by state lawmakers in 2009, before the federal health care law was passed, authorized a health insurance exchange to help reduce the state's uninsured population. [18 percent of Oklahomans have no health care coverage and the exchange will outline their health care options.

    "We believe that an Oklahoma network is good public policy," Fallin said. But they opposed to the federal health care plan, saying, "We're going to take care of our own problems."

    [Oh yes, with the full support of the INSURANCE INDUSTRY!]

    New Republican Insurance Commissioner John Doak praised Fallin's action and said he was returning a $1 million federal health care grant. "This is a fulfillment of my campaign promise to oppose Obamacare every way I could," Doak said.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      With every post you reveal your fanatical obsession with absolute control by the federal government.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That's right. Dig your head in the sand a little deeper.
        New evidence every day.These newly minted TP governors are making policies that HURT their states financially AND make no sense.
        Scott Walker -- stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights will not save Wisconsin a penny.
        Mary Fallin -- Health insurance exchange already approved in 2009. It's going to happen ANYWAY. But even though we don't have the money to implement it, we won't take any federal GRANT money to help us do so. We'd rather let the 18 million Oklahomans without insurance die.

        I will admit I have an obsession. And it does have to do with control. It's to return control to the American people and away from the greedy pupeteers who control the Tea Party.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Do you actually think that wasting money in vast amounts by the federal govenrment, is in the interest of anyone, including the states?   

          Why the fatally myopic point of view?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "Do you actually think that wasting money in vast amounts by the federal govenrment, is in the interest of anyone, including the states?"

            I worked in a major corporation, the federal government and in a state government--the ability and dedication of employees and the waste was similar in all three.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              LOL, a government type.   This explains your inability to grasp reality.

          2. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            NO! Stop the corporate welfare!!!

          3. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Enabling uninsured Americans access to affordable healthcare is not wasting money. Two unfunded wars is wasting money.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Since I was one of those uninsured for many years (even had kids during that time) please stop pontificating to me that you have even the faintest clue what you're talking about, nor have you any workable answer.    You have only one knee-jerk response to everything and it's "take what you want by force from those who have it".    People who hold other humans in such contempt don't really deserve respect.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              "Enabling uninsured Americans access to affordable healthcare is not wasting money."

              They have access to health care, they just have to put the beer down long enough to find a job to pay for it.

    2. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ignoramuses.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Ignore reality?
    The "reality" of right-wing la-la land, yes.
    The reality of the sad mess this country is in, no.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You don't even know what reality is.    I'll ask you again...   What are the numbers?    What tax rate will have to be employed JUST to fund medicare, medicaid,  and social security, in just 20 years?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The reality is that balancing the budget is much more complex than simply raising the tax rate.  The reality is that we don't have to eliminate ALL of our debt now or in the future. 

        The reality is that you are incredibly rude and I don't know why these nice people bother with you.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          None of them are "nice".   They are rude, nasty, hateful, and their comments about conservatives, TEA Party, etc, are proof.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Is there a single person espousing a taxe increase-only solution?
        Everyone recognizes that changes to these programs are required.
        A voucher system run by the states is NOT it.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I used to try to be diplomatic with people like you, then i found out it was a waste of time.   You will never stop advocating tax increases along with "adjustments", no matter how obvious it gets that the whole fundamental idea is unsound and unworkable.   

          You said in another post "wanting health care for people is hate?"   Of course not.  Everyone wants that.   But, when you insist on poisoning all debate with that kind of nonsense, I see no point in trying to be accomodating, when really, you just hate people like me.    I am the kind that stands between you and your emotional fulfillment, which is to take everything everyone needs, from the people you think have it, and then you get to feel emotionally fullfilled and without guilt.   

          And, I look at the economic damage that whill happen from the things you want do, which hits the very people you claim to want to help the worst and the most, and wonder why I bother with people who demand things that hurt others, while claiming virtue for themselves based on their claimed emotions.     

          Then, it occurs to me... I remember why it is people adopt the "force" method.  They like power over others.   It is addicting and eventually that addiction leads to wholesale corruption...   Which is why we have a saying that "power corrupts and unlimited power corrupts absolutely".   

          I look at the corruption in our government, and realize it's because we have given it too much power and money to control.   And then a certain small faction of political ideologues come along and claim that it's all due to failure to give the corrupt far more power and money.   

          So, no point in being diplomatic, really.   They have no respect nor concern for their fellow man, especially not me, whom they despise for standing and blocking thier addiction.   So, why should I offer any deference to them?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think Stephen's a little upset.

            http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/13242/2010/06/340x_screen_shot_2010-06-08_at_11.04.50_am.jpg

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Who is stephen?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Colbert.  Just someone you remind me of.

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know Stephen Colbert.    But I guess you can imagine whatever image lets you feel justified in your animosity.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    If you ever turned your TV off Fox news you might discover there's a whole world of thoughtful -- and humorous -- political discussion happening.
                    The Colbert Report is a prime example.

                2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh no!
                  Stephen Colbert reminds you of weholdthesetruths?
                  That is an insult to Stephen Colbert! Just the thought of that is icky!!!
                  He's a brilliant comedian who plays at being a right-winger.
                  He's actually best friends with Jon Stewart.
                  Stephen Colbert rocks. If he ran for president I would vote for him in a heartbeat! smile!!!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I LOVE Stephen Colbert so of course I was referring to his O'Reilly-inspired caricature of a right-wing pompous horse's hiney.

  6. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    This almost happened in Boston once....
    The African-American community was considering becoming independant of the state gvt, incorporating or something,and calling it Mandela....
    It never happened, but Gene Burns, radio-host du jour, had a lot of radio play on it.
    Actually, it might be an interesting experiment.
    As long as they keep their experiment there, don't try to make others go along...
    But what OF those who don't want to go along? Will they have to leave Montana?
    That doesn't sound fair.
    In fact, it sounds like they would be forced to go with the will of the majority....meet the new boss, same as the old boss!!
    But, Vermont is taking the opposite tack...they are going to have Single-Payer healthcare!!
    So, why not try something new?

    JUST--if you go it on your own, you are on your own...in fact, now that I think of it, that may have been why the AA community decided not to after all....
    Be careful what you wish for, mom always said.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Montana is doing nothing but asserting what it has always had...   It's rights under the constitution.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, pal, that ain't the way it works. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court decides what's constitutional not a bunch of ignorant lunatics running around in the woods in camo with military weapons.

  7. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Not everyone thinks the Tea Party ideas are good ones...

    Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns
    By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Matt Gouras, Associated Press –

    HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

    Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.

    It's the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.

    Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous.

    Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply "kooky," such as a plan to make it legal to hunt big game with a spear.

    Hardly a day goes by, however, that the merits of "nullification" aren't discussed.

    Proponents draw on Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century argument that aimed to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters and let them ban certain federal laws in their borders.

    Supporters are not dissuaded by the legal scholars who say the notion runs afoul of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law "the supreme law of the land."


    House Minority Leader Jon Sesso (D) stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

    Republican Rep. Cleve Loney rose. A man of few words, the tea party organizer replied: "I don't intend us to secede from the union. But I will tell you it is up to us. We are the people to decide."

    Some Republicans have turned against the more aggressive tea party ideas.

    "You are scaring the you-know-what out of them with this kind of talk," veteran Republican lawmaker Walt McNutt said. "This needs to stop and stop now. Stop scaring our constituents and stop letting us look like a bunch of buffoons."

    "It would be hard for anyone to top what is going on here in terms of the insanity of it all," said Lawrence Pettit, a retired university president and author living in Helena. "One could be amused by it, except it is too dangerous."

    Schweitzer, meanwhile, got a new cattle brand from the state livestock agency that reads "VETO."

    "Ain't nobody in the history of Montana has had so many danged ornery critters that needed branding," he said.

    Ain't that the truth!!!

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Scheitzer can count his days to the end of his career real fast.    Start insulting the people and you as a politician are DONE in the TEA Party world.

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, and yeah, those establishment types?    They all need to go, as well.   They're the reason why we're in the shape we're in.    TP messengers bring the answers that must be implemented.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    TP messengers bring the answers that must be implemented?
    TP elected officials are showing their true colors and at the Congressional level and state level (Gov. Kasich of OH, Rick Scott of FL, for two) the PEOPLE are disenchanted.
    Disenchanted in record time, actually.
    Here's some interesting food for thought. From
    www.publicpolicypolling.com


    Americans have dim view of Congress, GOP leadership
    Raleigh, N.C. – Just a few months after giving them a majority in the U.S. House, American voters are having second thoughts about the Republican congressional leadership. 43% think John Boehner and company are doing a worse job than Nancy
    Pelosi and the Democrats did when they were in charge.

    Independents say by a 44-30 margin that Republicans have been doing worse.
    Further, 48% trust President Obama more to lead the country in the right direction, while 42% have more faith in the
    GOP. The sentiment with independents is 49-37 for Obama.

    As a consequence, if an election were held today, Americans would vote for the Democrat in their district by a 46-41 margin. The two parties are polarized, but independents split the tie, siding 42-33 with the Democrats after voting heavily for the GOP last year.

    “The conventional wisdom is that Democrats will have a very hard time winning back control of the House next year,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
    “But that may be wrong- voters have soured on the new Republican majority in record time.”

    PPP surveyed 532 registered American voters from April 7th to 10th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.3%.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "voters have soured on the new Republican majority in record time."

      They have soured on republicans who wont change to the new wants of the American people.

      Don't worry, they still hate democrats.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What numbers are you reading? I'm not seeing a lot of hate against the Democrats here.

        Only four months in and the honeymoon's over.
        Boehner's gotta be pissed. He's being dragged down the drain by these "my way or the highway" freshmen TP congressmen who don't have a clue.

        The same buyer's remorse is happening at the state level as well. The tea is getting weaker and weaker every day.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Boehner?

          Who cares what a RINO is pissed about.

          I will let you call the mood of America after all, you dems were so right on the money last time. lol

      2. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That's not entirely true, maybe wishful thinking on your part. remember, alot of independents voted for these guys, now they've seen their true colors.. they will not be voting Rep. next election, especially if somehow Trump gets the nomination.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Really?

          Are there some democrats ready to call for less government and less spending?

          I'm sure there will be a conservative shift in their ideology before the next election.

          But we won't fall for it again.

          Liberals/democrats lie to get elected.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Every politician lies to get elected.
            How about the GOPs who campaigned on JOBS in 2010?
            lol lol lol

            LIE.

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image61
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      When countless millions are spent to demonize them, and no money is spent in their defense, you act surprised that public emotion could be swayed. 

      You didn't win in WI, and you won't anywhere else, either.   For though the emotional reaction to polls might change, the basic ideas that the TP is a response to has not changed in the slightest, and has, in part, been both hardened and strengthened.    Libs beware, there are no longer any vast crowds of support for big government.

      1. DTR0005 profile image85
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting comment lolll "When countless millions are spent to demonize them..." I wonder if you can acknowledge that same "fact" with the healthcare reform bill? Or doesn't that count? You know all that lobbyist money spent by the Insurance Industry (I work for them by the way)...  How about all those millions funneled to the Tea Party by Americans for Prosperity? That runs both ways..

      2. DTR0005 profile image85
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        But seriously - keep on with the insanity. It's like buying the Democrats an insurance policy that pays out in 2012.

  9. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    very disenchanted. He is as unpopular as the Florida legislature. His ratings have plummeted.

    You don't elect a corrupt CEO to run a state. It just doesn't work.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      We've discovered that in Michigan.

  10. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    An old pal and I had a great discussion about the deficit the other night. He's a brilliant college professor, author (if you watch the History Chanel, you've probably seen him on TV), historian, and liberal Democrat. He's worried about the deficit, just as I am. He's researched federal programs exstensively and says that there's about 20% waste and fraud across the board. He and I agree - wouldn't that be a great place to start saving $$ instead of stopping programs that are helping those like needy children, the blind, the poor, etc?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely. But easier said than done.

  11. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    The problem is, the TP'ers don't want an improved gvt...they want a GONE gvt!

    Starve the beast.
    That way--business can do whatever it likes.
    People do not need to pay any taxes.
    No gun regs at all.

    Dog eat Dog.

    Madd Maxx, Beyond the Thunderdome kind of world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8W4DEMU … re=related

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "and says that there's about 20% waste and fraud across the board." Even so the money goes back into the US economy and to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Israel,
    Egypt and on ad infinitum.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "In other words if you don't govern by the consent of the people then the people will have a right to form a government that will." Good luck with that.

  14. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The ghost of Ayn Rand is haunting the Sam Rayburn House Office Building.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opini … ef=opinion

  15. Shadesbreath profile image86
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    QUICK EVERYONE RUN TO YOUR SIDE!

  16. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Vermont was going to do this when Bush was president....don't know whatever came of it, and why they didn't.
    As I said before, some in Boston wanted to do the same, but it never materialized either.
    I have no problem with it, but the thing is....you are bound to have people in Montana who don't want to, and what will you do with them? Make them move? Or force this decision on them? In which case, how are you any better than what you claim to want to get away from?

    Seems like you would really be in the EXACT same position as the federal gvt.....trying to please a whole lot of people of different mind!

  17. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "These kinds of decisions are the ones that will force states to exercise their constitutional power and nullify laws passed by a government out of control as they did with real id for example." Agree.
    Guys like Roberts and Scalia wouldn't know what a law means even if it put them in jail.

    1. pat.henry1776 profile image58
      pat.henry1776posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That seems a rather harsh view given that they both are probably much more qualified than you to make such determinations.

  18. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh really? Then why is it such a huge deal when a POTUS gets to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice?
    The SCOTUS reinterprets case law all the time using their own political views.
    If Thomas & Scalia retired and were replaced by Obama appointees you'd see a very different complexion on Supreme Court decisions.

Closed to reply
 
working