MARCO RUBIO: I feel very confident in our plan. To be honest, I'm--The transcript is full of Todd stepping on Rubio's lines like that. I have never seen Todd treat anyone else that disrespectfully, and Rubio just acted as though it wasn't happening. Did Todd hope he could rattle Rubio? Well, he didn't. Rubio just put up with it. He never resorted to the approach I think Trump (for example) would have used: keep talking, forcibly, and don't allow a place for the interruption.
CHUCK TODD: Are you trying to win Iowa?
MARCO RUBIO: I'm trying to do well and win everywhere we campaign. I'm not running for second, third place in any state in this country. Obviously, these races are very different--
CHUCK TODD: So you, you're trying to [win] Iowa?
MARCO RUBIO: I'm trying to win--
CHUCK TODD: You're investing--
MARCO RUBIO: --everywhere that we campaign--
CHUCK TODD: --in Iowa.
2. Same-sex marriage. Here, Todd minimized the interruptions and let Rubio jabber, which Rubio seemed fully willing to do. Same-sex marriage is a resolved issue that a candidate doesn't need to make much of, but Rubio obviously wanted to bear down on it:
CHUCK TODD: Are you going to work to overturn the same sex marriage?Yes. It's done now. You can walk away from this one, Rubio. Do you really need to use it? Did you need to toss in the Elvis impersonator, as though excluding gay people from marriage is just another state-level choice like whether you can get married right away without waiting? Todd invited you to let this go, but you didn't:
MARCO RUBIO: I disagree with it on constitutional grounds. As I have said--
CHUCK TODD: But are you going to work to overturn this?
MARCO RUBIO: I think it's bad law. And for the following reason. If you want to change the definition of marriage, then you need to go to state legislatures and get them to change it. Because states have always defined marriage. And that's why some people get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. And in Florida, you have to wait a couple days when you get your permit. Every state has different marriage laws. But I do not believe that the court system was the right way to do it because I don't believe--
CHUCK TODD: But it's done now. Are you going to work to overturn it?
MARCO RUBIO: You can't work to overturn it. What you--There, he's mixing up 2 constitutional law subjects: 1. the level of government that has the power to legislate, and 2. the rights of individuals. Even if he thinks the Supreme Court is misinterpreting the scope of those rights, there's no question that the federal constitutional rights in the 14th Amendment limit what states can do with the laws they pass, even about matters they've traditionally regulated.
CHUCK TODD: Sure. You can do a constitutional amendment.
MARCO RUBIO: As I've said, that would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level.
MARCO RUBIO: And that's why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about. It's not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. That definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it.What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.Now, he's gotten around to talking about constitutional rights, and I get it that he thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong when it found a right. But the case is decided.
CHUCK TODD: So are you accepting the idea of same sex marriage in perpetuity?He did not have to do that. He's chosen to make a play to social conservatives. He wants the same-sex marriage opinion overturned? All the gay couples who've married now — he wants to take that away — some time in the future, because nothing is ever settled? Some things should be settled, and I hold Rubio responsible for choosing this, of all things, to unsettle.
MARCO RUBIO: It is the current law. I don't believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.
पोस्ट्स
७४ टिप्पण्या:
Poesy and Ferguson was also decided.
Rubio said the magic words - he said he was against same-sex marriage. After all, this is the Republican primary and Rubio is not a flaming liberal.
Transgender/homosexual marriage is not resolved. The "=" movement and court ruling simply applied pro-choice doctrine to establish constitutional and institutional selective exclusion of politically unfavored orientations and behaviors. The rainbow flag was raised to celebrate a remarkable violation of civil rights.
How Rubio lost me.
He's lacking in substance. Look how he robotically plugged in old running-for-the-Senate material, mentioning Florida twice. It's not even good pandering. I thought he was the one who could be mainstream and appealing, but he lacks the wit and the gravitas.
"there's no question that the federal constitutional rights in the 14th Amendment limit what states can do with the laws they pass, even about matters they've traditionally regulated." You mean, there's no question SCOTUS can make up any old BS and declare it a "federal constitutional right" even with regard to matter states "traditionally regulated" and that were never regarded as "privileges and immunities" relevant under the 14th and would have horrified the framers. Sure, there's no question. Not anymore. It's settled, Marco. Settled. And if you're choking on what they're shoving down your throat, tough. You don't have a constitutional right to keep the actual constitution.
"How Rubio lost me." But why? You just told us it's settled, so you have nothing to worry about. So a rational assessment would focus on what else he would do, besides what you regard (with some justification!) as pandering and symbolic politics. Or are there other "rights" you'd like a Hillary! appointee to "find"?
"Plessy and Ferguson was also decided."
A case denying a right is very different from a case finding a right. And this is a right that people have relied on to restructure their lives. You choose what cases you want to argue to overrule, and a man deserves to be judged by the choices he makes. Rubio lost me.
This, and pandering to Adelson, have been the pillars of his campaign.
Althouse seems to think she's well informed, how is this news to her?
Anywho, as I recall, Meade is pretty good at sussing out smarminess--strange that he didn't give Althouse a heads up regarding Rubio.
Presumably Rubio as the numero dos, won't lose Althouse.
It's decided then: Althouse is voting for Hillary.
But the thing is, she won't really be voting for Hillary for reasons of plausible deniability. No, this will be a rerun of 2008 where she voted against McCain and also didn't want to be on the "wrong side" of history. In this case, Althouse won't want to be on the wrong side of "herstory."
Just curious, Professor. Did Rubio ever really possibly have you? And if so, why? What was he saying that kept him in your 'possible' column?
@Prof. Althouse,
You choose what cases you want to argue to overrule, and a man deserves to be judged by the choices he makes. Rubio lost me.
Are you saying that there are, in theory, arguments against SSM that you would entertain if a Republican candidate argued them with more "nuance"? I think, in all honesty, that any argument against SSM by a candidate would lose you, because as you say, "people have relied on [it] to restructure their lives".
There could have been a world where a Republican candidate could have adopted a "live & let live" attitude towards SSM. Indeed, the younger ( < 35) Republicans generally support SSM. But, after the bakery & the pizzeria & the Prop 8 supporters getting targeted, there's no way in Hell a Republican candidate can support SSM now & get through the primaries. Those battle lines have been drawn, & if you think it was just the Repubs that drew them, send Brendan Eich an email & ask him his opinion.
In my opinion in a debate granny Hillary would wipe the floor with Rubio. Send him to bed without dinner. Put him in ‘time out.’ Take away his allowance. Ground him for a week.
Dear Rubio: Never get too detailed. Keep it simple. Talk right through the annoyingly interrupting liberal asshole; on one will hold it against you. If you can, grow a mustache; it’ll make you look less wet behind the ears. Take a lesson from Trump and win every interview. The Art of the Deal.
I think part of the appeal of Rubio is the yearning on the Right for a figure comparable to JFK. Young, vigorous, charming, etc. But he just doesn’t cut it. And it’s a different era with different political assumptions. JFK’s “Camelot” never existed except in the heads of adoring reporters. The Kennedy boys swam in a cesspool of womanizing, adultery, bribery and crime.
I agree with some that Cruz is a good debater. The problem, though, is that we do not really have debates for the presidential candidates. The difference between these so-called presidential ‘debates’ and ordinary interviews is not worth 2 cents. So the ‘debates’ are actually interviews by several of several. After the conventions it will be several interviewing two. Cruz would probably win a real, university-sponsored debate but that assumption is irrelevant since we’ll never have a real debate.
Btw, cons here should be nervous. Althouse may burn y'all again if she figures out that, for any con President, strict-constructionist means a reversal here.
Althouse isn't worried about human-people (as opposed to corporation-people), people who'd prefer to attend a movie theater w/o needing to prepare for a shootout, or folks opposed to coat hanger abortions, but she does care about gay folks. Unfortunately for cons, Althouse may realize that these are all connected.
Althouse gives us the Russ Feingold version of constitutional interpretation: The law's not settled until we win.
"...this is a right that people have relied on to restructure their lives." I understand your point, but this isn't the most compelling support. People restructure their lives to come here illegally. Should we let them stay because restructuring?
How Rubio lost me.
And what's the alternative?
"Just curious, Professor. Did Rubio ever really possibly have you? And if so, why? What was he saying that kept him in your 'possible' column?"
Click on the Rubio tag to see what I've been saying.
I voted for Romney in the last election.
Chuck Todd is just pathetic. Post the transcript where he slimes Scalia and suggests he is a racist because he asked a question based on the book "Mismatch" and academic studies along the same line. Can't even ask a question or submit a brief on it according to Chuck.
And then he finishes with a smarmy comment that Scalia's comment shows why he doesn't want cameras in SCOTUS.
No, Chuck. Your complete misrepresentation of this topic is why there should NOT be cameras in SCOTUS. Incredibly dishonest.
The whole segment was a pitch for Hillary. Elect the historic Hillary and Scalia's replacement will be the historic first open LBGTQ Justice.
"How Rubio lost me. And what's the alternative?"
I don't like any candidates. Bring back Mitt.
Althouse is a Hillary voter. You all realize that, don't you?
Isn't Trump in favor of Gay Marriage?
I think he is. Or doesn't care.
Todd brought up same-sex marriage, not Rubio. Rubio indicated that he did not agree, but would not work to overturn it. He went on to talk about the Supreme Court and the kinds of justices he would appoint. This is something he will be confronting should be become President; same-sex marriage is not.
Given the Republican base, that is a fairly reasonable response. If he loses Althouse from one Sunday morning chat fest, I suspect he will have lots of company between now and the election. What happens if all of the candidates wind up losing Althouse?
I would have to say though, that wit and gravitas are not my prime criteria for selecting a President.
I don't like any candidates. Bring back Mitt.
Mitt's not coming back. If you really wanted Mitt you needed not just to vote for him in 2012, but to work for him in 2012. And work hard.
Remember the debate in the late '40's about "who lost China?" The real answer was, "We never had China." If on these flimsy grounds Althouse says Rubio "lost" her, then he never had her.
Why didn't Rubio duck this issue on the ground that it's been decided? Perhaps because he thinks there's an important principle involved? Or maybe because before he can run for president he has to get the Republican nomination, and there are a lot of Republicans who agree that the Supreme Court acted lawlessly in imposing the opinion of five justices on an institution that has existed for thousands of years?
If Rubio wins the Republican nomination, he will (probably) be running against a candidate who has sworn to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overrule Citizens United. I support gay marriage, but I support the First Amendment even more, so I won't have any trouble deciding who to vote for. If Althouse is a single-issue voter, and gay marriage is her issue, then no Republican candidate would "have" her vote.
Rubio has to pander to the hillbillies. That is what the Republican Party has become. Andthey did it to themselves.
And once again, "hillbillies" has nothing to do with social economic status. There are many rich college educated hillbillies living in big ol' houses outside of places like Dallas and in Wisconson counties like Waukasha.
"How Rubio lost me."
Of course he lost you. Are you going to vote as a single issue voter because of your son ?
Ridiculousl
"Althouse is a Hillary voter. You all realize that, don't you?"
Yes but she will probably stay home.
As a gay I don't think Rubio gives a shit about gay marriage.
He likely is ok with it just like Obama was.
But he needs to win an election just like Obama.
I skimmed through the transcript. what a waste of time to watch these shows! Todd talks more than Rubio, and then half-way through we get a bunch of MSM Dinosaurs saying cliched things about Trump. And once again, Todd ducks the Amnesty/immigration issue. The biggest reason Rubio hasn't taken off with Repubs is because of his Gang of 8 Amnesty betrayal. But to Todd, the big issues are (1) getting Rubio to denounce Trump and (2) talking about gay marriage.
Citizens United is settled law that guarantees people's rights. Both Clinton and Sanders have committed to working to overturn it.
Have they lost you too?
@Once written,
You know, Once, to call you a "One Trick Pony" is an insult to the ponies.
Rubio is a smooth talker who is looking for a position to take that furthers his career. Then he can get the money from the donors who think he is for their pet position, until he gets a better offer. It's a business career.
Trump is going to do what he says he is going to do. To the GOP Establishment that seems like a huge bug and not a feature.
It looks like Mitt has agreed to be the Establishment's candidate in waiting for a last minute vacancy if an expected assassination succeeds. They would not dare to turn to Bush III at such a moment. And they will splain it to Cruz.
"There are many rich college educated hillbillies "
Yes and they vote for Obama. Obviously, they have never studied math and have no idea of history, as you do not.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
There is not one Republican candidate that will concede that Same Sex Marriage is now the law of the land. There is not one Republican candidate that is on the right (as in correct) side of any social issue. The Republican Party and the conservative movement is old, tired, worn out and regressive. My opinion and that of more than one half of America. Republicans and going to lose this one in a major way.
Just as a lot of modern con-Christians are appalled by the stuff some Muslims continue to endorse (that Christians used to endorse), I think that, in the future, many con-Christians will be appalled by Muslims who continue to oppose LGBT rights.
But, not for quite a while.
For now Althouse seems to be more interested in the here and now. Presumably she doesn't understand that Mitt's Justice picks would have been no different than Rubio's.
You'd think Althouse would understand why con-pols don't have any problem with uber-con social issue decisions. They, following the folks who pay for their political campaigns and their post-pol incomes, are more worried about easing the so-called burdens of the rich and powerful. Tossing bones to social cons is a pretty cool trade: the soc folks think that they get riches in the afterlife, the rich cons know that they can collect today. And, the rich-social-cons have it all, rich today and when they're dead.
This issue is quickly becoming the new Roe isn't it?
Oh well, anyway I do have to agree with the previous commenters that this post has less of a feeling of actual principle to it and more of a feeling of "how dare he disagree". If you believe that the ruling was unconstitutional then who cares if overturning it is disruptive.
This is an area where there are strong feelings on both sides. Althouse has strong feelings and basis her decision on emotion, he son is gay and she is responsible for that, so she supports him. She has come to terms with it and needs to support him for her own sanity.
The other side also is emotional about homo sex. We see it as sinful and destructive and in need of forgiveness, not pandering.
This is an area where many votes are hidden. And Conservatives should really work with black churches and Muslims and orthodox Jews to destroy this part of the Democrat party.
There is a huge coalition here if the Republicans learn to exploit it. But Overtones Window needs to be dragged back to the right.
In other words, someone needs constant talking about jail time, stoning, and other horrific acts towards those engaging in such destructive behavior so that reasonable Conservatives can come forward and say, let's compromise with tolerating sin, but not accepting it and enshrining it in our laws.
Rubio is unlikely to be the nominee, and if he is the nominee, he will not win. Trump has succeeded in making opposition to amnesty a litmus test for the nomination, and whoever the nominee is, he or she will have to be a credible skeptic of open immigration. Rubio cannot be that person.
I like it when Althouse pretends Rubio had her at some point so that he could lose her.
Normally Althouse jokes are lame. This one was hilarious.
""hillbillies" has nothing to do with social economic status."
Thus demonstrating that "once written, twice . . ." is incoherent. If the term had nothing to with social economic status, it wouldn't work as a pejorative.
"Now, he's gotten around to talking about constitutional rights, and I get it that he thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong when it found a right. But the case is decided."
Would you say the same about Hillary and Heller?
While you can be pro- or anti-Obergefell, it seems improper to say that only those decisions that create an individual right are properly the subject to being overturned.
That means bad decisions are a one way ratchet - if they provide individual rights; if the decision fails to expand individual rights, it can be the subject to persistent attack.
That is not a principled position.
Besides, it's not obvious what "right" is being expanded or curtailed in a particular case. Dred Scott was about the right to own slaves, and owners bringing slaves into territories would have relied on it (if not for the war) to restructure their lives. In West Virginia v. Barnette, the Supreme Court took only three years to change its mind, and to deny schools the right to force children to stand for the pledge.
It would seem to be a cruelty to invalidate marriages already in existence, but perhaps the decision could be prospective only.
Welfare can never be withdrawn or lessened despite its disastrous unintended consequences for black families. It took, what, 50 years for the devastatingly negative consequences of welfare to be generally acknowledged. But, now, nothing can be done. Nothing can ever be changed.
What will be the negative intended consequences of gay marriage? (One is already apparent. Fag hags like Althouse want to emulate the mating patterns of gay men.)
She's smarter than thousands of years of human civilization after all. The AIDS epidemic, of course, proved that the "stereotype" of gay men was true.
The temptation to play the "I'm a nigger, too!" game proved impossible to deny. It was just as ridiculous for the professor to play the "oppressed" woman as it is for today's spoiled brat college kids. Althouse played this game twice, once for herself and once for her son. . She did this out of hubris, arrogance, grasping self-interest and plain greed.
Now, we have to deal with the stupidity wrought by her childish drama queen act. And, she's already telling us she'll hold her breath until she turns blue if she doesn't get her way. It can't be changed! Daddy told her she was a princess!
A case denying a right is very different from a case finding a right. And this is a right that people have relied on to restructure their lives.
So if President Sanders gets to replace a few conservative Justices, then the court finds a right to a $100,000/yr salary for everyone, and people restructure their lives around this, then that right can never be reconsidered?
Ann said; this is how he lost me and he's lacking substance. This from someone we know voted for Obama at least once. Please.
"Ann Althouse said...
How Rubio lost me."
What a pile. First "it's settled". Well, then what does it matter what Rubio thinks about SSM. Of course your vote for Obama, because he was "better able to handle the financial crisis", led to the most prolonged recession with the slowest recovery. Tens of millions still not participating in the workforce.
CHUCK TODD: But it's done now.
It cannot be said enough that SCOTUS decisions the Left agrees with are "settled" and "done" --- but it's NEVER that case with decisions they dislike.
Is Citizens United "done"? I'm betting Chucky will not say yes.
A case denying a right is very different from a case finding a right.
Citizens United is "decided". Have Dems lost you with their obsession over "overturning" it?
There is not one Republican candidate that will concede that Same Sex Marriage is now the law of the land.
Number of Dems accepting Citizens United and Heller is...what?
There is not one Republican candidate that is on the right (as in correct) side of any social issue.
I'd say due process is a big social issue and the Dems want to do away with it.
Althouse, you don't find the actual opinion in Obergefell to be solid, do you? It's not like Roe. A decision you like based on the flimsiest attempt at jurisprudence possible. If "Kennedy thinks it's nifty" is enough to make a decision "Settled" and unquestionable, then this country is dead.
So, Rubio lost Althouse. That's fine. But these social issues are really the dumbest reasons to pick or exclude a candidate. Especially with all the real threats currently looming in the world. Let's face it, there is zero chance that any of the candidates will find a way to overturn SSM much less waste political capital trying.
On the other hand, the Democrats have a lying, corrupt, lazy, incompetent candidate that may be responsible for one of the biggest intelligences breaches in US history. She's also paid a lead role in numerous middle east debacles and has supported the current US policy of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. But somehow she remains on Althouses' radar, cackling away. It's enough to make you wonder what Hillary would have to do to lose Althouse.
Oh well, we still have a few years to keep arranging the deck chairs. Terrorists haven't yet figured out how to deploy nuclear or chemical weapons and Iran hasn't perfected the marriage of their nuclear and ICBM technologies. But that day is coming. Probably sooner than we think. And I can't think of a candidate less qualified to deal with any of those challenges than Hillary!
In the thread about interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you recognized that public opinion contributed to the legitimacy of the conservative interpretation with regard to gun regulation. The opposite is true with this issue because SCOTUS created a right on flimsy grounds, contrary to the laws created in many states by people speaking through the legislative process.
And yet this law, settled for about 5 minutes in historic terms, should not be questioned....why, exactly?
It clearly is a deal breaker for you personally, so you should just say that instead of presenting it as though Rubio has more generally hurt his chances. For every liberal that Rubio has "lost", there are likely to be scores of conservatives that either oppose SSM or feel grave concern for the way the issue was decided. I would hope that the GOP candidates don't waste one minute worrying about whether they should kowtow to liberals on this issue.
He was my leading candidate. I am looking for a competent, responsible moderate. I never expect the candidate to give me everything I want. But Rubio has moved, for me, from the most plausible of all the candidates to someone just not ready for the position. I don't think he's got what it takes, not just yet anyway. He's either not smart enough or not independent enough or not experienced enough to do what is needed.
He's either not smart enough or not independent enough or not experienced enough to do what is needed.
Or he has principles. That can often be a dealbreaker for those without.
The Republican Party and the conservative movement is old, tired, worn out and regressive. My opinion and that of more than one half of America. Republicans and going to lose this one in a major way.
We've aged rapidly since we kicked your asses 13 months ago.
he lacks the wit and the gravitas.
Yeah, but how does that make him different from everyone else in the race--on either side?
I am looking for a competent, responsible moderate.
It's hard to take you seriously when you don't apply the same qualifications to Democrats.
He was my leading candidate. I am looking for a competent, responsible moderate. I never expect the candidate to give me everything I want. But Rubio has moved, for me, from the most plausible of all the candidates to someone just not ready for the position. I don't think he's got what it takes, not just yet anyway. He's either not smart enough or not independent enough or not experienced enough to do what is needed.
I actually feel the same way about Rubio's inexperience but it has absolutely nothing to do with him stating a position in opposition to SSM (or more to the point, a position in opposition to the way SCOTUS created this right.)
Since you made it about that, it seems more like a litmus test and one that shouldn't be taken seriously. I have a litmus test on my prolife position, for example, but I wouldn't expect Democratic candidates to care that they have lost me based on that.
chickelit said...
"It's decided then: Althouse is voting for Hillary."
I doubt it, but maybe I will vote for Hillary — just to cancel out chiclet's vote. Wait! — that might be exactly what chiclet is trying to do — get me to vote for Hillary who chiclet secretly supports. Mine could wind up being the deciding vote.
And then Hillary will dump Bill, ally with chiclet, and the two of them will rule the world by turning the rest of us — through a poorly understood secret biochemical new age process — into low-information voter robot drones.
It also strikes me that moderates always get the vapors over things candidates say during the primaries. Do you really expect Republicans to pass up the opportunity to point out that they will nominate conservatives to the court?
Rubio is smart enough to know he doesn't have a chance with most Republicans in today's Conservative base unless he rejects the Same Sex Marriage decision and most other social issues that are not regressive. The majority of commenters here seem to back Trump according to two of the Althouse polls recently. What does that say? It says the mainstream right has to extreme right. What used to be the mainstream right are now deemed moderate 'squishes'.
And then Hillary will dump Bill, ally with chiclet, and the two of them will rule the world by turning the rest of us — through a poorly understood secret biochemical new age process — into low-information voter robot drones.
That secret biochemical agent would be hops in beer. It's emasculating!
A little gravitas from Senator Cruz. This would actually save some lives and make others less grim--but most politicians don't have any desire to improve government here.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/senators-cruz-and-lee-introduce-reciprocity-bill.html
Unfortunately, I think Rubio would more likely passively accept the media characterization of him than either Trump or, say, Cruz would. It's easy to imagine the media helping Rubio through the rest of the primaries and then turning on him with a 47% moment like they did with Romney. A lot of people are going to be on the lookout for press independence as a condition of their vote.
Rubio is smart enough to know he doesn't have a chance with most Republicans in today's Conservative base unless he rejects the Same Sex Marriage decision and most other social issues that are not regressive.
Due process is now "regressive".
The majority of commenters here seem to back Trump according to two of the Althouse polls recently. What does that say? It says the mainstream right has to extreme right. What used to be the mainstream right are now deemed moderate 'squishes'.
In what alternate universe is Donald Trump "extreme right"? He's less conservative than Hillary is a Progressive. Measures less.
Unfortunately, I think Rubio would more likely passively accept the media characterization of him than either Trump or, say, Cruz would. It's easy to imagine the media helping Rubio through the rest of the primaries and then turning on him with a 47% moment like they did with Romney. A lot of people are going to be on the lookout for press independence as a condition of their vote.
If the press can turn Romney and McCain into far-right wing ideologues, my biggest requirement for a candidate is a deep hatred for the press.
I shall... or is it should?... support civil unions and end selective exclusion as advocated by the "=" activists. Applying the pro-choice doctrine to relationships is just as repulsive and corrupting as its application to human rights, civil rights, scientific facts, and self-evident knowledge.
Chuck Todd interrupted Marco Rubio to a ludicrous degree, but he gave him the room to hurt himself on same-sex marriage.
"Nevertheless the Kaiser was afterwards reported to have said: 'I am sorry Strauss composed this Salome. It will do him a great deal of harm.' Strauss, on hearing this, commented that the harm enabled him to build the villa at Garmisch." --Norman del Mar, Richard Strauss
Ann Althouse said...
"He was my leading candidate. I am looking for a competent, responsible moderate. I never expect the candidate to give me everything I want."
Here is where you and I must disagree. There is nothing I want fedgov.org to for me other than what it is constitutionally obligated to do. Other than that. Leave me the fuck alone.
"But Rubio has moved, for me, from the most plausible of all the candidates to someone just not ready for the position. I don't think he's got what it takes, not just yet anyway. He's either not smart enough or not independent enough or not experienced enough to do what is needed."
On this we can agree. Although I'm sure you'll find my choice way too radical for you.
"Here is where you and I must disagree. There is nothing I want fedgov.org to for me other than what it is constitutionally obligated to do. Other than that. Leave me the fuck alone."
That's something YOU WANT. To be left alone.
Did you assume that when I said "I never expect the candidate to give me everything I want" that I wanted handouts or something? I want, for example, a competent and strong national defense.
Is whatever 5 out of 9 of our Supreme Court justices want "a settled law"? In that case Dred Scott vs Sandford was rightly decided in 1857 -- and we should rehabilitate Chief Justice Tawney.
Read Justice Kennedy's Obergefell decision, if you can wade to all the gop until he decrees that, by gum, whenever he and at least 4 of his colleagues achieve enlightenment on any issue, the legal history and the actual text of our Constitution are completely irrelevant.
And as an antidote read any of the 4 dissenting opinions.
I want, for example, a competent and strong national defense.
If that were true, Hillary would have already lost you.
"If that were true, Hillary would have already lost you."
If you've been reading this blog since 2004, you'd know that she was lost to Hillary a long time ago.
Why was Obama given a pass in 2008 when he told Rick Warren that he believed marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that it was a matter for state law to handle? Because those who voted for him knew that was a wink-wink?
Then why not give Rubio a pass on gay marriage now, when he's fighting for the very important evangelical vote in Iowa? You can think that's a wink-wink, too, since he's also on record as saying he'd attend a gay wedding because: “How you treat a person that you care for and love is different from what your opinion is or what your faith teaches marriage should be.”
Ann Althouse said...
"Here is where you and I must disagree. There is nothing I want fedgov.org to for me other than what it is constitutionally obligated to do. Other than that. Leave me the fuck alone."
" That's something YOU WANT. To be left alone."
You gotta admit you were being kinda ambigous there
"Did you assume that when I said "I never expect the candidate to give me everything I want" that I wanted handouts or something? I want, for example, a competent and strong national defense."
Kinda goes to the whole 'constitutionally obligated to do' thing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा