I've been trying to come up with something cogent to say about the House's single-party passage of the stimulus bill. I started with a list of valid reasons (I thought of three) that a member of congress might use to vote against a bill that's already going to pass, but that was a non-starter because it's nearly impossible to gauge the motivations of a block as diverse in their thinking as the House GOP (cough). So then I started writing about the possible electoral advantage Republicans might be banking on by voting against the stimulus bill, but the image that was coming to mind, for me, was this "60 Minutes" story about the town in Ohio where nearly 60 percent of the workers all lost their jobs this year:
So after I mopped up from the crying jag that video sent me on, it was hard to think about voting against the stimulus bill in terms of Election Advantage. If I want to believe -- and I do, really, in my heart of bleeding American Liberal hearts -- that the people elected to Congress aren't all cynical bastards concerned only with their own political futures, then I have to believe that the House Republicans voted against this bill based on principle.
Which made me wonder how the representative for this very district voted -- and, lo and behold, Wilmington is the home district of Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner. Guess I know how that went down.
But really, John Boehner? You spent the last week rallying the GOP -- as is your job -- against the stimulus bill that is going to provide money directly to Ohio -- which had to borrow $50 million from the federal government just to pay unemployment checks this month -- and to your beloved "working families" because there aren't enough tax cuts included?
Let me be clear, Mr. Boehner. I'm willing to believe these are your principal beliefs. Tax cuts solve everything, and spending money is bad. Got it1. Therefore, let me say this: you'd better vote that way on everything. I'm serious. I'd better not see a single project for your home district cross the President's desk in the next two years. No pork. No infastructure reform. No John Boehner Center for Kids Who Don't Read Good. If the House votes on a Sense of the Body resolution congratulating your mother on her 100th birthday, you'd better freaking vote against it if it doesn't include tax relief and immediate job creation. None of this namby-pamby giving money to state governments B.S. in your votes, Mr. Boehner, right? None of this "bloated" creation of new programs. As you said, "Someone has to stand up for American taxpayers, too, and House Republicans are going to do that."
I'm glad to know where you stand, Mr. Boehner. Clearly, government spending can never lead to an increase in jobs -- I'm sure that the 600 percent increase in federal spending in your own district between 2000 and 2006 in no way benefitted the economy. In fact, I'm sure no jobs were created when defense giant BAE won a $71,546,085 no-bid contract for its subsidiary, Fairfield Ohio's own O'Gara-Hess and Einsenhardt (now Centigon) to build, among other things, doors for armored vehicles. All told, BAE pumped $217,764,911 government dollars into your district's economy in the last fiscal year. Man, if only they'd had a tax cut, maybe there would be some jobs in the Ohio 8th.
This is the policy to which you've just committed your entire party. When I hear "House GOP" for the next two years, I'm going to think, Oh yeah, the guys who wanted to cut taxes to save us all -- because that worked so well in the Bush years. I'm going to think Ronald Reagan's trickle down non-sense. I'm going to think of you, and of the workers in Wilmington, who -- having no income -- probably aren't so psyched about the idea of an income tax cut right now.
You are now standing firmly on the high dry ground of principle. So in six weeks, when the flood of relief aid begins to swirl about the country, I'd better not see you dipping your toes into the warm waters of spending being a good idea.
1 In case I needed a refresher, though, I did enjoy the three minute video you apparently found time to make today about Republicans Standing Up for America. Yes, three minutes of my life I won't get back, but also, I'd guess, at least an hour of yours that could've been spent, I don't know, working at the soup kitchen they're doubling the size of in Wilmington. Have fun on your next trip home, Congressman.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Cognitive Dissonance is my favorite label for most stalwart conservatives I've met. When ideology doesnt...quite...fit reality, these people make it fit - everything be damned (except them because they're saved 'n shit).
Silkstone, you're right, wouldn't want to insult anything that has a steady job, even a body part, in this economy.
Granted with the downsizing of DHL Ohio is hurting. However, this bill is not to help just Ohio. It's to help us all.
So in your last paycheck, how much was withheld for taxes? Wouldn't you rather have it to spend on your family needs instead of the government giving it to the National Endowment for the Arts?
Also, they believe that Barack Obama's victory was a fluke. If Boehner and his ilk just stay the course until the mid terms, people will start to come around to the Republicans again.
There are many including myself, that are more rational thinkers and feel this is sea change for our country. The problem with the republicans is they are a one-trick pony, and have had no second act since the Nixon adminstration.
There are no Bob Michel republicans in the house who are willing to collaborate and compromise. Just a bunch of hold the line stalwarts who have been out of the mainstream for years, but flying on the radar. I'm hoping that their reactionary behavior will now be seen for what it is, and that Republican brand means: "We are dedicated to help rich white people gain more wealth and keep it, at the expense of the rest of American society."
Boehner and many like him are just that. They are also very self-serving and child-like in their pettiness. (No offense to kids, they aren't that bad.)
Well stated.
(rated)
I think of that every time I see him.
Good post. Hold him to it.
SO rated.
The other heros are the House Democrats who broke ranks to make a statement.
However viewed, the vote was a huge defeat for Obama who was clearly counting on personal charm to make the breaking of ranks occur on the Republican side, rather than on the Democratic one.
All in all, a great day for democracy.
There is about $5 billion to go to ACORN. Do you think Obama might be just a little to close to that group? How many jobs are going to be created by billions to the National Endowment for the Arts? I want real roads fixed, not pictures of fixed roads.
"At the head of this daisy chain crawls John Boehner, House Republican leader, a man determined to acquire the black vote in his district by trying to look darker than Barack Obama. Either that or he’s going for the butt pirate vote."
Forgive the plug, but if you want to see the rest go here:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=94536
Especially felt was the last line:
"Have fun on your next trip home, Congressman. "
This is telling as it is not Obama's charm but the people's expressed desire for change which is driving it. The people are an awakened lion who have seen the harm that 8 years of spend, spend, spend, tax cuts for wealthy has brought ruin to the middle class. Obama has only begun to spend his considerable capital and influence with the citizenry.
Let the repugnicans try to sell the same old snake oil that killed gramma. They never said NO to bush; they better have good reasons for saying it to Obama when there is so much on the line.
Also, what Jon said!
I wish the best for the good Congressman, but I have to confess... I hope he burns in hell. For he and his Republican colleagues are only looking out for self. and not the American worker.
Lets send them pink slips and take their Government Health Insurance away when they get booted out of office.
Rated for excellence!
There should not be a single dollar of government spending that does not maximize job creation in the near and middle term. That billions might create some jobs simply is not sufficient justification, when other forms of spending would clearly create more. Obama was so right when he spoke about infrastructure; as both a jobs creator and a facilitator of capitalist growth, it was the perfect stimulus object. So when did ACORN, the NEA etc. become part of the infrastructure.
No less importantly, there should be no tax cuts that do not come with the condition that the money be spent; incentivize consumer spending with sales tax rebates; increase unemployment benefits, which always get spent; incentivize investment with capital gains tax reductions; incentivize job creation with awards for small business. But do not simply remit or lower taxes in the HOPE people and businesses will spend the money. Hard times breed hoarding which exacerbates hard times in its turn.
This bill should not be about anything but the economy as a whole. Let other bills be proposed to tide people over, to perform noble social projects, to secure necessary constituencies etc. Only by restricting the goal to economic growth can Obama get anything like bipartisanship to play out here (and I don't mean Boehner and Cantor, who are beyond the pale, but a Voinivich, a Snowe, a Collins even a McCain). And if he can't secure bipartisanship on this bill, in this economy, he can't do it anywhere. Frankly, the present bill does not deserve the support of independents, let alone republicans.
Catnlion
January 29, 2009 05:11 AM
Guess what? I WANT THEM TO GIVE MONEY TO THE NEA. Supporting the arts means that we're not savages. Supporting the arts creates jobs.
~
There is about $5 billion to go to ACORN. Do you think Obama might be just a little to close to that group?
And this is just a lie. Actually it's three lies.
Have fun with all of the other crazies - we have a country to fix.
~
OK, got it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901270010?f=s_search
A San Francisco Chronicle article reported the false claim that $4.19 billion of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan "would go to the liberal housing activist group ACORN." In fact, the bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding.
Or just laugh at them. Mockery would be appropriate.
~
Supply side economics always make the next president look like an idiot-let's hope that Obama has the good sense to continually point out to the American public just who is responsible for this mess. Unfortunately, the American public won't remember, and will fall for GOP bullshit right about the time the Dems have begun to right the economy, and the GOP will claim credit for fixing the problem. Jesus, why do I even bother paying attention to politics?
Even if the stimulus works better than anyone now hopes (unlikely... and even if it does 'work' it will take a while), the Republicans are no worse off than they are now: in a sharp minority, making lots of noise.
These Republicans have learned from the Democrats of the early Bush years. Oppose stuff if you're in a minority. National unity in Congress only works for the least controversial issues. The Dems in congress should have stood up to the Patriot Act and the run up to war in Iraq. They didn't, which essentially handed Bush four more years.
now, just get Boehner's constituents to read and comprehend.
Not savages, perhaps, but parasites. In a free society, the arts are supported by audiences, not by government.
By the way CatnLion, I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to the National Enowment for the Arts/Humanities. But it makes me furious to think how many of them have been squandered on Iraq. Don't tell me Republicans don't like to spend money--give 'em a war, give 'em a weapon and they'll cheerfully throw billions at it. They just really hate spending money on things that actually benefit or enhance the lives of people in this country. Then it automatically becomes "pork."
I think it is akin to sin that not one GOP vote
was counted for the stimulus. Residual Bush?
Anyway, like Obama said, "We won."
I've taken to calling Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Boner.
However, I agree with Libertarius... this does not in any way look like a coherent plan. In fact, it looks tantamount to tax cuts, just throwing lots of money back into the system. Of course some of these government programs need funding, but they aren't connected enough to the economy to have an effect over this recession.
If the billions were aimed at one or two things, say 300 Billion for alternative energy and 500 Billion for mortgage/debt relief, then maybe I'd be enthusiastic. But there is very little here that seems to say "economic recovery." I'm a bit dissapointed.
If the stimulus bill works, Obama and the Dems will get the credit no matter how the R's voted.
If the stimulus bill fails after passing with a large bipartisan majority, everyone will get the blame.
If the stimulus bill fails after passing along party lines, Obama and the Dems get the blame. Repubs gain political ground this term and have a major campaign issue for 2010.
Politically, there was no good reason for House Republicans to vote for the bill. Boehner's still a major wanker.
Job well done.
(I hope no one else has already said that, because I don't have time to read every comment now.)
Kudos Saturn.
Still, I prefer how he looks to Mitch McConnell, who always appears as if he is receiving a proctological exam just out of view of the camera every time he speaks. It creeps me out, frankly.
The Republicans only want tax cuts, mistakenly thinking that will stimulate the economy. All that will do is run up the deficit. The increased consumer spending will go to buy foreign goods for the most part--just like last year which didnt' end up creating any American jobs.
At least as I understand it, the stimulus package will work. Then, we will need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts so we can start paying for it. Sorry, rich folks--we are going to force you to do the patriotic thing and pay more taxes.
If Repugnant rhetoric is correct (a HUGE if) that Acorn is an arm of the Democratic Party (a bald-faced lie the Rs would discover for themselves if they had any candidates who had any interest in the will of the people), then funding Acorn does create jobs in the short and mid-term because those funds will help defeat job-killing Rs, whose only concern seems to be beating a path to K-Street.
Given a choice, I'd a helluva lot rather my tax dollars went to Acorn than Halliburton -- even if H was creating a few jobs. As for the NEA, far better that money goes to starving artists than to aesthetic extravagances in John Thain's next palatial office.
I am damned sick and tired of hearing that the only thing we can afford in this country is the care and feeding of the out-sized egos of incompetent, overpaid, corporate CEOs. Their businesses stopped being private the minute they accepted public financing. And this stopped being a pure capitalist economic system the minute these clowns accepted the first govt dollar -- and that was long, long ago.
Think not? When they buy sweetheart tax deals, they are in effect taking money from the govt. And the last time I looked, the govt was still supposed to be us -- so they are taking money from us.
One way to fund the package is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were ill conceived in the first place.
Americans, I think, have not yet fully accepted what we are playing with in terms of the economy, that we could be looking at a real total meltdown with lots of us looking for food and a warm place to sleep at night.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090128_incongruities.htm
In the words of the late Billy Preston, "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."
What use are income tax cuts when you have no income?
Like others, I'm severely disappointed by the bill's lack of commitment to infrastructure development and repair, probably the best idea of the campaign. However, that doesn't mean that I am ready to crucify the NEA to relieve my frustration. In case many have forgotten, FDR's programs to promote and strengthen the arts during the Great Depression not only bolstered spirits but kept many from a harsh fate.
The ease with which Americans of all stripes throw the arts on the trash heap only fulfills the ugliest of stereotypes about the Philistine nature of our society.
Well done.
rated
Catnlion, sure, a tax holiday helps people with jobs. But those 7,000 folks in Ohio without them seem left in the cold. And I'm with Meander61 on the NEA. Also with him on the ACORN statement -- my understanding is, yes, there's money included in the stiumulus bill that an organization like and probably including ACORN would be eligible for, but it's in no way earmarked for ACORN -- they'd have to apply like anyone else. Strange behavior if the president is in the pocket of that organization, as you suggest. I cite FOX News as proof, and shudder just slightly.
OESheepdog, I think your theory about Boehner et al is probably right on.
Libertarius, you said: But having said all of that, I think the stimulus package as currently crafted pretty much stinks. And you know, I agree with this. Right now my big hopes are that, having seen that trying to be moderate in the plan has instead created a bland bill with GOP compromises (less infastructure repair, more emphasis on tax rebate), the Senate Democrats will pass a muscular bill and these provisions will get re-introduced in the conference. While I agree that the bill should be about "the economy as a whole," I think you and I may be defining it differently, as I see the expenditures on many of these "noble social projects" as ways of ensuring long term economic growth, while things like investment in unemployment benefits are equally necessary but more short-term focii.
Thanks, everyone, for the discussion and thought-provoking conversation. And please, feel free to link to related posts or thoughts -- I've seen a few links above, and I love that. Never apologize! We should all be talking to one another this way, right?
Do your realize what you just said?! My God, it's a historical breakthrough of epic proportions. The Philistines didn't disappear; they just intermarried with Republicans.
Stop the presses! I smell a Nobel Prize in the works! Kevin, you'll soon be famous!
re: Repub genesis,
As long as progressives get to be the child shepherd armed with a slingshot, it's all good.
You say that you agree with the comment that "If I were a congressman I would vote for the stimulus package. However, the only reason that I would do so is because its better than doing nothing."
This position sounds superficially plausible but it begins to lose its attractiveness when one realizes that this is the very principle that landed us in a war in Iraq.
Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do the horribly wrong thing.
This may seem like gnat swatting but there is a point.
This country does not have trillions of dollars of its own to spend on just any old action. The action it takes has to have some element of reason about it and some probability of doing more good than harm.
Critics who worry that the stimulus package currently under consideration may not get money out into the national economy soon enough have a valid point. FDR had a similar problem trying to get money into the economy quickly in order to stimulate it.
So we must have some confidence that what we are doing will take us where we need to go. Action for action's sake is really not a supportable position, right or left.
That said, what I do agree with is that we cannot be frozen into inaction by our fear that we may make a mis-step. We will. But we must be prepared to change course and try something else.
What is worrisome is that we may not have many opportunities to change course, to spend lots of money as we work our way up the learning curve. And this is the real existential rub.
We could go absolutely broke as a nation, buried under hyperinflation, long before we become learned.
What is enough discussion? What is adequate planning? When is it too much fretting and not enough getting? Hard questions.
I really am not certain where that leaves us. Between Iraq and a hard place, I think.
The choice is not between Halliburton and ACORN and you know it. But if you really do believe that money given to ACORN would really produce more in the way of stimulus and job creation than any other possible use, then you know too little about economics to argue with. And if you don't believe money given ACORN would produce more in the way of stimulus and job creation than any other use, you should be opposing that provision of the bill. Because we are in too big a hole to deficit spend in any but the most economically efficient ways imaginable.
Oh well, consistency and substance have never been exactly strong points of the ultra left.
Oh well, consistency and substance have never been exactly strong points of the ultra left.
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the “neighborhood stabilization” money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not.
Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: “I’ll tell you what’s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we’re funding Obama and the Democrats’ army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party’s re-election.”
Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide.
According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:
$1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.
$10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN’s.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
Period.
The ROI on tax cuts is at most 29 percent. Do something like infrastructure investing, and you're looking at an ROI of around 60 percent.
If I were a CEO of a company and one of my division managers came to me and said, well, we've got an option that gives us a 29 percent ROI and we've got an option that gives us a 60 percent ROI and I want to go with the 29 percent option, he'd be escorted to the door by security as soon as I could get them in there.
The same thing should happen to idiots like Boehner. They should be escorted to the door.
We should start to run ads throughout all the battleground states now saying why do republicans like John Boehner want to stand in the way of four million jobs?
It'd be one thing if it was an intellectually honest disagreement. But it isn't. Boehner had no problem with running up the national credit card when Bush was the President. Now he does.
His hypocrisy is as clear as that of his leader, Limpd**k.
While our economic house is burning down, Boehner and his friends want to play spoiler politics, instead of rolling up their sleeves and becoming part of the solution. Clearly, the love of country, the idea of the common good, the willingness to contribute to a larger good -- all of these are simply beyond the crass capacities of these so-called political leaders.
I believe President Obama will continue to model his politics of consensus while his team, not at all naive about the deadly nature of politics, works to contrive vise-like conditions to convince Boehner and his friends to be more cooperative.
That is, to cram the little bugs into a very tight corner until their shiny little carapaces begin to crack.
In fact, exactly the opposite is happening. The Senate reception to Ms. Pelosi's bill is shaping up to make its HR experience a love-in.
And the big loser is Obama, who let the left-wing nuts in the House write Big Pig in the first place. It's one of a series of indications that Obama's lack of experience is beginning to show.
Ram it down the douchebag's throats.
And if they don't like it, tough.
Work with them when you can, ram it down their throats when you can't.
And make them pay a price. The next time one of the people who got in the way tries to get something, you make damn sure it gets cut out of the bill. Or you highlight it and shame them and say they talk about cutting pork and how it's bad but look at what they're doing.
If they're vulnerable, you make sure you show up on Air Force One with their opponent. You portray them as someone who wanted to destroy four million jobs and you say their opponent is a person who will fight for American jobs.
Show the opposition there is a price to pay for getting in the way and being obstructionist, and they will learn to work with you.
Or they won't, and then you destroy them without mercy.
1.Where will this trillion and the previous trillion Big Gov is spending to save us, come from?
2. Where in the Constitution is the authority to fund arts endowments, car companies, banks, or any of the rest of this boondoggle?
Same answer to both questions. Neither the money nor the authority to spend it exists. In both cases, Big Gov is making it up as they go, and where they are going is ...disaster.
We cannot spend, borrow, or print our way to prosperity. This massive printing of fiat money will lead to astounding inflation or worse...default/collapse of the dollar.
This issue has nothing to do with personalities or politics. Both parties have equal guilt. If this madness persists it is not going to be very pleasant in the USA for the next decade or three.
Your constitutional concerns strike me as rather naive for a host of reasons, but I will put that issue aside to address your concern about where the money is to come from for the big projects we need to stimulate this economy.
We can seek to borrow more from foreign creditors, but the enduring patience of countries like China and Japan to fund our spending is coming to an end. As Paul Craig Roberts has written This leaves us with the option to either begin printing money, which threatens to create hyper-inflation, or, we can look around to see where we are spending great gobs of money unwisely, and that might take us to a critical assessment of just what we are getting for our dough in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what we are getting from the bloated military and defense budgets.
Apparently, the military and defense budget is the second third rail that no politician dare touch, lest he or she be sent off to political heaven, never to be heard from again.
But that is where the bag o money doth lie, and it is there that our brave prince must venture if we are to find the treasure we need to weather this most perfect of all economic storms.
Bush and his neo-con confidantes dealt this country a mortal blow when they started those two accursed wars. In this world, there are always an infinite number of ways to respond to any circumstance, and each different option carries with it a price. But to some absolutistist thinkers, such as Cheney, price seems to never have been a consideration. And that is what was dangerous about Bush and company. Like spoiled children of well off parents, the nasty little impingement of cost never seems to have been brought up.
In fact, I think Cheney even went so far as to declare that Reagan had proved that deficits don't matter. How ironic. And how sad.
We come at this from different perspectives no doubt, but I can agree that if we must waste a trillion, it's better to do it here than in Iraq. I would go well beyond Iraq though and close nearly all the military bases we have in over 100 countries and let the world handle its own problems without our "leadership" or money.
And yes I suppose it is naive to expect elected officials to live up to their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies...foreign or domestic. Unfortunately, we have abandoned that ancient document, to our great peril, and have now become a nation of men, not laws.
Just for the record though, the Constitution is more than a bill of rights. It quite forcefully limits the powers of the central government to a short list of specific things, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. We the people have allowed Big Gov to assume more and more of our Constitutional responsibilities to the point where one who suggests we take them back is judged naive.
Our approaches are not that different.
I would readily agree that we should also close the 100+ military bases around the world. Chalmers Johnson has done a pretty good job of outlining the folly of over-extending our military power throughout the world. And Bacevich, has complemented Johnson's analysis by showing the limits of military power to carry all the weight of foreign relations. So we are in agreement on this point.
I also agree that the constitution is an important founding document. The essential founding document for our constitutional republic, and it is this document that binds the many as one. So I imagine that you and I are not in disagreement about this point either.
But I do not believe that the constitution spells out in specific detail each and ever specific action that the government may take vis a vis its citizens. It is, I think, a set of generative principles for specific action. Like a grammar, it lays out the general rules for making a sentence, but it does not lay out all specific sentences. That was my point, which was not spelled out, purposely, because I am not concerned, in this small space, to make an argument for why we should love and admire our constitution.
On this very last point, that we should love, admire, and struggle seriously with our constitution, we probably also agree.
But whether we agree or not on all points is neither here nor there. That we are willing to try to clarify one another's thinking is important. We have had far too little of it during the last 8 years.
Thank you for the comments.
Thank you for your kind sharing of your blog site. I did not mean to become a blog hog. But I did think that it might be okay to respond to Mr. Baldwin's most interesting statements, since it is a political blog, and I understand these to be a slightly different matter than other blog sites. More interaction between the blog host and the writers.
Trust me, I will want to hang around this site and chew the fat with others. It's obviously a bright group with manners.