Tag: Republicans 2016

The GOP’s Desire to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship, or the common law concept of jus soli, is back in the news. This time, brought back by Donald Trump. One of his proposals is to stop automatically giving citizenship to most people born on US soil unless their parents are US citizens. Denying people Birthright Citizenship rights is something America hasn’t done since the days of slavery. The Republican concern is that too many illegal immigrants have a child in the US who is automatically an American citizen, and therefore, has the right to vote.

Most Republicans think, just like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), that Hispanics perpetrate a scheme to get a foothold in the country by coming here and having a child. King calls them “anchor babies”. In fact, the Republican plan would visit the sins of the parents on the children, assuming the children were born in the US.

And Trump isn’t alone. A large group of GOP candidates believe we should end Birthright Citizenship:

• Scott Walker has the same view
• Ohio Gov. John Kasich, during his run for governor in 2010 said that he supported ending Birthright Citizenship
• KY Sen. Rand Paul has pushed for a Constitutional amendment ending it
• NJ Gov. Chris Christie has said the issue needs to be re-examined
• Former PA Sen. Rick Santorum has also stated his support for altering the 14th Amendment

On Monday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tweeted:

We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Wrongo’s favorite thing is that Bobby Jindal supports ending Birthright Citizenship, even though neither of his parents were US citizens when he was born.

SC Sen. Lindsey Graham, called for a change in the Constitution, because he believes immigrants will simply “drop and leave” their kids in this country. Just like Steve King!

The GOP’s target is the 14th Amendment, which grants everyone born in the US the right of citizenship. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case declared that blacks, even the daughters and sons of freed slaves, were not US citizens. But, 11 years later, in 1868, the US ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, making Birthright Citizenship a right. The first sentence reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Court later ruled in 1898, that a child born in the US to non-citizens was a citizen under the law. So the short version of today’s GOP pitch on eliminating birthright citizenship is:

We must enforce the immigration laws by violating the Constitution.

This means that a solid chunk of the Republican presidential field says that, while they revere the Constitution, they have little issue with distorting it, ignoring it, or shredding it in order to fit their political and ideological motives.

Consider the irony: The Republican Party accomplished something hugely enlightened and important with the 14th Amendment. Here is American Civil War historian Eric Foner:

The 14th amendment and birthright citizenship rank among the great and defining accomplishments of the Republican Party, back when it was the Party of Lincoln.

Yet today’s Republican Party wants to purge their historic accomplishment from the Constitution. The problem with this Republican immigration proposal is that it’s at core explicitly nativist, racist, and xenophobic. The Republican’s clear objective is to stave off the growing political power of Latino voters in the service of one particular political party.

Luckily, Constitutional amendments are very difficult to enact, and while this attempt is likely to fail, it could potentially send Latino voting through the roof.

The current crop of Republican presidential candidates show that the Republican Party of today is in no way related to the Republican Party of Lincoln. In fact, it is barely related to the Republican Party of Eisenhower.

If you had any doubt about the current crop of Republicans being a mutant version of the party, consider Ben Carson’s viewpoint on immigration:

Ben Carson drone

Why not land mines? The only piece of common ground the current Republican Party has with the Party of Lincoln or Eisenhower is its name.

In fact, that should change. In 2015, we should call it the “New Republican Party,” since it fails to honor Lincoln’s, or even Eisenhower’s memory.

Facebooklinkedinrss

The Political Stylings of Donald Trump

We see a torrent of Trumpism, and viewed from the sidelines, it is a presidential candidacy based on emotion, while shockingly lacking in policy. It is difficult to see him succeeding, unless Republicans believe that being a vain, obnoxious and unapologetic old uncle is all that it takes to run the world’s largest superpower.

If that’s what they think, they have found their man.

The Donald has co-opted Tea Party rage. But, there’s nothing to grab onto, except the rage itself. He and his supporters hate immigrants. They hate Mr. Obama’s withdrawal from our blundering wars in the ME. They hate the vastly expanded access to healthcare coverage, and apparently, they hate being rescued from a Republican Depression. They do love them some American Exceptionalism, though.

As Bloomberg’s Melinda Henneberger comments about a recent Trump rally in New Hampshire:

Very little of what the conservatives in the hall were going wild over could be characterized as conservative, and most of it wasn’t political at all.

What Trump wants us to believe is; “I’ve got this.” His strategy is to have us believe he is a strongman brimming with rage. His “tell it like it is” approach has a true populist appeal, but his slogan “Make America Great Again” is as vague as it can be. Here are a few NH quotes: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

We will make great trade deals.

We will have Social Security without cuts.

We will come up with health care plans that will be phenomenal, phenomenal, [and] that will be less expensive.

Describing a future-perfect conversation between President Trump and the Ford Motor Co. officials, he’ll change their minds about building cars in Mexico. He says:

This is too easy, too easy! This is a couple of phone calls.

Some Trump supporters will vote for him, some will not, but all like his honesty, his lack of PC, his ability to run without outside money, his success, his independence from America’s political elite.

Krugman says the conservative explanation of the GOP’s onset of Trumpism is that their base voters are victims of celebrity. What they really want is a true conservative, but they’re being hoodwinked by someone who is entertaining on TV.

Krugman thinks the liberal version is that Trump is appealing to resentment that ultimately rests on economic failure: working-class whites have been left behind by growing income inequality, while they mistakenly blame immigrants taking their jobs. But he thinks Trump’s supporters look a lot more like the Tea Party, who are:

For the most part not working-class…They’re relatively affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.

Republicans seem to be in a mood to require heavy doses of impatience, resentment and outrage from any successful 2016 presidential candidate. Trump realized that sooner than his competitors, and neatly fills the bill. He is disorienting the Establishment Right. His supporters don’t give his political platform much thought, which works, since thoughtlessness is at the base of most of Trump’s policy cure-alls. He is cleaving the Republican Party into one camp that gawks helplessly at its past and a new camp that is inserting a shiv in the Establishment Right’s tired old body.

For progressives, what’s not to love? Trump said on Meet The Press: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

And if I’m president, we’re going to have a great country…And then we will really have [it] better than Reagan, better than anybody. We will make America great again. That’s what it’s all about.

Ok, Chuck Todd, you can’t ask: “How?”

Trump is the expression of today’s conservatism: loud, abrasive, and vacuous. Forget data, forget policy. Why search for evidence when you can rely on belief and tradition?

There are two options: Republicans either oust Trump and his Trumpeteers, perhaps forcing them to form a third party. Or, Republicans can accept that Trump is in their mainstream, and run a populist platform, laced with doses of anger and vague policies. If he is the Republican nominee for President, Republicans will then witness the Trumpocalypse, and be picking up the pieces for years.

Those are the choices. Either way, contemporary conservatism will be in ruins.

What’s not to love?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – July 26, 2015

Happy Sunday! Americans hate theocracy everywhere but at home. According to the Pew Research Center, 49% of Americans think churches should speak out about political matters, while 48% disagree, reflecting our divided politics. This has changed since 2010, when 52% wanted preachers to stay away from politics, and 43% didn’t.

The new urge to hear their pastors pillory politicians is supported mostly by Republicans. About 63% of Americans still think churches should stop short of endorsing candidates for office (vs. 32% who favor endorsing), but the gap has narrowed since 2010 when it was 70-24%. Moreover, only 29% of Americans see the Democratic Party as friendly to religion, while 47% see the Republicans favoring religion.

So in the most devout parts of the country, Democratic candidates tend to distance themselves from the party’s national stereotype. You will see this again in 2016.

Churches as institutions should be apolitical. And conversely, the political process should not explicitly favor members of certain religions for office. If it is really true that pious people are more honest or ethical, that fact will be clear when individuals are evaluated during the campaigns. On the other hand, nothing is easier to fake than religious faith, precisely because we can’t see into the heart of another person.

While politicians must pander to lobbies or to wealthy individuals that pay for their election campaigns, if they pander to religion, it makes a hole in the fabric of US politics. Having religious organizations directly sponsor political candidates would be so much easier. After all, “God wants you to vote for John Doe” is a pretty irresistible campaign message. Luckily, that isn’t America – yet.

Another week of summer with more Trump, Iran, and killings in Louisiana. Kerry met with the Senate:

COW Cooler Heads

Boehner has a strategy for Iran deal:

COW Same as Obamacare

 

GOP has to scratch its itch:

COW Fleas

Trump also deserves a medal:

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press
Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

Fugelsang nails it about mass shootings, this time in Louisiana:

Fugelsang on Louisana

The Louisiana gunman’s rage dates back decades. CBS News in Louisiana reported:

A local TV host frequently invited him as a guest, knowing he’d be a lightning rod who could light up the phone lines with rants against abortion and working women…

So he was part of what Donald Trump and Ted Cruz affectionately refer to as “The Base.”

Facebooklinkedinrss

Republicans Vote Their Conscience

The “lawgivers” in DC moved forward on two deeply held Republican ideas this week, and neither stand up to close inspection.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill banning torture. It is an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that will permanently bar the “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were used by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration. It passed 78-21. It limits the interrogation of detainees by any US government employee or agent to only using techniques that are listed in the publicly available Army Field Manual on human intelligence collection. This is a good thing.

The 21 no votes, which are really a vote for torture, were all by Republicans. That’s 21 US Senators, all from one political party, including the Senate Majority Leader and his Majority whip, who voted to continue torture as an official policy of the US government.

Presumably, these 21 will run on their support for torture the next time they come up for re-election. Interestingly, the vote split Texas’ two Republican Senators, with Cruz voting for the bill, and Cornyn voting against it. The Houston Chronicle quoted an aide to Cornyn:

The senator is concerned that limiting intelligence professionals and law enforcement to interrogation techniques detailed in publicly available manuals would give would-be terrorists the ability to train and prepare against them.

Really? You think it is possible for the average jihadist to “prepare” for the techniques described in the Army Field Manual? And that preparation will compromise our intelligence gathering? As Charlie Pierce said:

This country can be America, or it can be a country that tortures. It cannot be both.

Next, the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday released a fiscal year 2016 funding proposal that, among its provisions:

• Dismantles the Affordable Care Act
• Eliminates funding for the Title X family planning program
• Includes something called the Health Care Conscience Rights Act that is essentially more Hobby Lobby, although on steroids

It would eliminate Title X funding unless the program meets a certain ideological (read: abstinence-focused) criteria:

None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available to any entity under title X of the Public Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities.

And here’s the part of the proposal that would let your school or boss determine whether or not your insurance covers contraception or any other form of healthcare they may not like:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no provision of this title (and no amendment made by any such provision) shall… require a sponsor (or, in the case of health insurance coverage offered to students through an institution of higher education, the institution of higher education offering such coverage) to sponsor, purchase, or provide any health benefits coverage or group health plan that includes coverage of an abortion or other item or service to which such sponsor or institution, respectively, has a moral or religious objection, or prevent an issuer from offering or issuing to such sponsor or institution, respectively, health insurance coverage that excludes such item or service.

Yes, it enables more unwanted pregnancies, less breast and cervical cancer screenings, more undiagnosed sexually transmitted diseases, and more economic burdens pushed onto the states.

According to a data from the Guttmacher Institute, each dollar invested in Title X saves $3.80 in Medicaid expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth. Another Guttmacher analysis found that the services provided by Kansas’ Title X clinics in 2010 helped save the state more than $61,000,000 in public funds. According to the report:

That accounts for savings from reduced maternity and birth-related costs, along with reduced costs related to miscarriage and abortion and savings related to [sexually transmitted infection] screening and cervical cancer prevention services.

You can certainly count on Republicans. If there is an efficacious solution to a problem, as in this case, you can disregard it for a faith-first solution that costs more, while creating unnecessary cruelty and inhumanity.

Republicans want to stand the First Amendment on its head.

This is who they are. They will piss on the Pope if he speaks about climate change. And their leadership, plus a total of 39% of Republicans in the Senate support torture, since torture seems mas macho.

You have a chance on Election Day to tell them what you think about their “conscience”!

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – May 10, 2015

The Republicans seem to have a bumper crop of presidential candidates. We can expect about 20 Republican candidates to announce before the running really starts. While it raises talk about the “Clown Car”, it also shows the strength of the Republican’s “bench.” Republicans have multiple governors and senators who could run a credible campaign in the presidential election. Contrast this with the Democratic Party. Who has what it takes to challenge Hillary Clinton’s position for the Democratic nominee?
COW Hillary Coronation

It’s partly the strength of Hillary’s resume, but the Democrats have no viable alternatives. If Ms. Clinton stumbles, the Democrats would be stuck trying to win with Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, or Jim Webb. This is indicative of a huge problem for Democrats: It has no bench. Consider this:

• Before the 2010 election, the Democrats controlled 61 of the 99 state legislative bodies in the US. By the end of the 2012 election cycle, they controlled 36; today, they control 30.
• The number of Democrats in the House dropped from 257 in mid-2010 to 201 after the 2012 election. Now, that number stands at 188.

And they are counting on older, war horse candidates for open Senate seats in 2016: Their nominee in Ohio will be Ted Strickland, who will be 75 by the 2016 election. In Pennsylvania, Democrats will likely go for former Governor Ed Rendell, or former Representative Joe Sestak. In Wisconsin, Democrats will probably look to former Senator Russ Feingold, and in New Hampshire, current Governor Maggie Hassan is the top choice.

Only in Florida and Illinois, where Reps. Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth are slated for Senate nominations, are younger incumbents likely to move up.

A party with a strong, young bench in each state is like a basketball team with lots of young talent; they may not be all that good yet, but everyone knows they will be at some point. This void threatens to limit the Democrats in the not-too-distant future, and needs to be remedied quickly, or the party will be in a minority position for a very long time.

Contrast with Republicans:

COW GOP Candidates

Jade Helm brought out the best in Texas:

COW Jade Helm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Deflate Gate” came back to haunt the Patriots:

COW Game Balls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Brady’s homoerotic moment:

COW Brady

In Great Britain’s election, the Scots declare independence from England, and England from Europe:

COW UK Election

Britons vote after six weeks of campaigning. That’s only 42 days for the pundits to make their dough. The NY Times reports that in the UK, each party is limited to spending $29.5 million in the year before the election.

All TV channels are required by law to give the main parties and their leaders carefully measured free time at peak viewing hours to state their cases. Paid TV advertisements are forbidden. And on election day, television and radio shows are forbidden from discussing campaign issues, talking about polls or dissecting individual candidates until the polls close at 10 pm.

Let’s try it, America!

Facebooklinkedinrss