Barker, Bass, Borchert, Ty Cobb, Curtiss, Ferguson, Fincher, Fitzhugh, Fraley, Litz, McDonald, Shepard, Tidwell, West, Winningham, and Yokley all have decided that their need to stand up for glorious Arizona is more important than passing a budget.
While I can’t help but think Gary Odom is right–stunts like this hurt tourism, which we need, since we’re all out of work and someone’s got to pay the bills, the whole thing is actually kind of funny, if you think about it. I mean, if Arizona really wants the rest of the country to think they’re not ruled by a bunch of racist jackasses, having a bunch of powerful white Southerners, like, oh, the State Legislature of Tennessee, congratulate them is probably not helping to make their case.
“No, no, we’re not racist! The fact that we have a great deal of support from the Confederacy is… um… just a coincidence.”
In slightly different news, it’s interesting how this list lines up with Chip Forrester’s hit list. Only Coleman and Bone are missing (and they both abstained from voting on the resolution). This raises an interesting, and deeply troubling question. Why do those lists have so much overlap? Did the people on Chip’s list vote for this because they’re vulnerable? Did the folks who voted for this who aren’t on Chip’s list just signal that they believe they’re vulnerable?
If you’re counting, that would make it 18, not seven, vulnerable Democratic seats.
That’s scary. Or it would be if you could count on Democrats to not vote for crap like this, which you can’t so…
I don’t know. I wish I had more snark in me, but I swear, all I keep thinking is that these sixteen Democrats thought this was important. Not our jobs. Not making sure we seem like a friendly and awesome tourist destination. Not our national and international reputation. Not passing a budget. But standing in solidarity with Arizona.
And to what end? So we could continue to look like petulant assholes on the world stage?
The only comfort I take in this is that our support makes Arizona look bad.
Tiny Cat Pants 
I imagine you’ll soon be getting an uptick in Latino tourism from Arizona.
Pingback: Uncanny, isn’t it? : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
“Barker, Bass, Borchert, ….. all have decided that their need to stand up for glorious Arizona is more important than passing a budget.”
“I keep thinking is that these sixteen Democrats thought this was important”
Why would their yes votes signal that they think this is important. It was up for a vote and they voted on it. Wouldn’t the no votes cast against it suggest that those legislators thought voting against a powerless resolution was more important than creating jobs or passing a budget.
The no voters aren’t the ones who introduced the matter and caused the legislature to waste time on it.
Really, this is the best response you can come up with? “Um, but the ‘no’ votes mean something, too!”
Yes, yes, they do. They mean that, when faced with even symbolic hateful nonsense, some Democrats are willing to stand against it and some are not.
To nm: the Democratic yes voters didn’t introduce the the matter either, the Republican majority did.
To Aunt B. I’m not defending the yes votes, in fact I find them deplorable, I was simply pointing out that your reasoning was quite flawed. The fact of the matter is that legislators vote on hundreds of bills that neither they nor anybody but the sponsor find important.
I agree with your conclusion that voting “yes” on such a resolution was sad and maybe pathetic, but that doesn’t make your reasoning about importance any less faulty.
Nope, my reasoning is fine, thanks. Choosing to go along with the Republicans instead of insisting on sticking to an agenda that improves the lives of Tennesseans is a waste of time.
Choosing to stand against a piece of vile legislation is not.
It is important to stand against evil stupidity, always.
Now your simply changing your argument, orignally you proposed that voting yes on the resolution implied that such legislators viewed it as more “important” than jobs, or the budget:
“all I keep thinking is that these sixteen Democrats thought this was important”
This implies some sort choice between voting on this resolution or voting on the budget. A choice which doens’t exist, indeed nothing these Democratic legislators did slowed down the legislative process.
Now you’ve changed your argument to where the importance is attached the morality(for lack of a better word) of the vote. This is simply not what was written originally:
“all have decided that their need to stand up for glorious Arizona is more important than passing a budget.”
You clearly state that the importance is attached to the (non-existant) choice of voting for this amendment vs. the budget.
Again your conclusion is sound your reasoning is not.
Kris, are you kidding? You really can’t see that there’s a moral question in the original post? The choice was not simply “vote yes or no” or “vote on the budget.”
The people who voted yes could have abstained from voting. Or they could have stood against it.
But they voted yes. They gave it the weight that it was the important thing for them to be voting on. And a yes vote does have different moral weight than a no vote.
The people who thought it was important to vote yes were, indeed, claiming standing up for Arizona was more important than doing the real work of the budget.
In a “keep your eye on the ball” situation like this, your choice is not “vote yes or no.” Your choice is “don’t participate, because this is not what you’re job is” or “stand against the legislation.”
Voting “yes” is indeed saying that this was more important to them than the budget. Otherwise, they would have not participated in the vote.
You’re the one who’s mistaken in assuming that I’m implying that the choice is voting on this resolution or voting on the budget.
And, shoot, even if I were willing to concede such a narrow interpretation of my own words (which I am not), “working on” does not equal “voting on.”
Which you know.
So, what’s the point of this?
“But they voted yes. They gave it the weight that it was the important thing for them to be voting on.”
“Voting “yes” is indeed saying that this was more important to them than the budget. Otherwise, they would have not participated in the vote.”
So you are arguing that every time a legislator votes yes/no on a bill that that means they view it as important. And, that every time a legislator votes yes on a bill it means they view it as more important than the budget
Interesting, and pretty obviously false.
__________________________________________
” And a yes vote does have different moral weight than a no vote”
This is also not true. Indeed:
“Your choice is “don’t participate, because this is not what you’re job is” or “stand against the legislation.””
I can agree that the best course of action would be a no or p/nv vote. But clearly it is the P/NV vote that carries less moral weight. A no vote is simply the moral counterbalance to the yes, it says that the legislator stands tall against those yes votes actively working to pass the resolution.
__________________________________________
““working on” does not equal “voting on.””
Of course not, but you said “passing a budget” which means voting not working.
__________________________________________
A better argument from the start would have gone something like this:
Today the House passed a terrible resolution. It is a racist xenophobic pile of crap. Many Democrats voted for it. These Democrats were also on Chip’s hit list. Perhaps the reason they are vulnerable is because of shitty votes like this.
Kris, fine. You win! You have pedanted me half to death. I concede. I’m not even going to read your whole comment because it is so damn boring and doesn’t matter. I mean, good lord, you agree with me, but you’re going to piss and moan because I didn’t write it exactly how you would have in order for it to be absolutely clear to you?
First of all, I write a lot of blog posts. They’re not all going to be winners.
Second, guess what? WordPress.com is free. Start your own blog! Write things your own way. Shoot, I bequeath you a blog in which you can nitpick until your heart’s content every damn thing you come across.
You’re right! You’re right. I have no idea about what, but you win! I give.
Does that feel better?
Sounds like a sore loser to me
Yes, exactly! And thank god there’s been a victory on the internet between two people who agree with each other!
It was fun reading. :-)