Questions Mike McWherter Now Owes Voters Answers To

Well. Wow. That’s interesting. It brings up some questions, though.

So, Mike, what other parts of the Constitution do you have issue with? Should gun lovers also be worried? Or is it just Section 8 of Article One? If we don’t recognize the constitutional authority of the federal government to make rules regarding immigration and not the states, are there other things we can ignore the Feds on? You know, we’re in dire financial straits as a state. Maybe we should decide Tennessee doesn’t recognize the embargo with Cuba and start trading with them. What do you think, Mike? Could we sign a treaty with Spain when you’re governor? Declare war against Alabama? I believe Tennessee has really suffered for not having a Navy. Could we count on you to institute one? Are you ashamed of being an American? Is that why you chose today to flip off the Constitution?

You’ve already shown your tail to gay people. And the people of Memphis. And now immigrants and the Constitution. Who’s next? Single mothers? Non-Christians?

Is there any traditionally liberal constituency you’re not going to dick over?

I’m just wondering.

17 thoughts on “Questions Mike McWherter Now Owes Voters Answers To

  1. Oh, honey, that’s gonna have to be something so far beyond mansplaining that we’re gonna need a whole new word for it. Maybe explaindering?

  2. Does this line of logic open up the possibility of me having my own individual foreign policy? If so, I’d like to set up a three-way trade where we give Arizona back to Mexico for a toxic waste dump, Mexico gives Emperor Maximilian’s body back to France for burial at Les Invalides, and France gives us Provence, for the wine and cheese.

  3. Oh my god. I love ‘explaindering.’ It’s like if explain and pandering had a baby.

    Mark, one wonders. The thing that blows my mind is that there are dead cops in Memphis because of this “the federal government isn’t the boss of me” attitude. And yet, these jackasses want to ride that train into office. It’s so gross.

    And hilarious.

  4. It’s like if explain and pandering had a baby.

    That was my thought.

    When Ed Koch was mayor of NYC, he claimed that the city had its own foreign policy.

  5. Is there any traditionally liberal constituency you’re not going to dick over?


    Simplest questions deserve straightest answers.

  6. Pingback: Missed Opportunities | Speak to Power

  7. Aunt B.,

    “The thing that blows my mind is that there are dead cops in Memphis because of this “the federal government isn’t the boss of me” attitude. ”

    And there are a murdered father and two sons in San Francisco because that city would not deport illegals in its custody including those with criminal records.

    Put differently, are there more victims of crime here in America because of “the federal government isn’t the boss of me” attitude” or because we have no control of our borders?

    Or don’t the victims of crimes committed by illegals meet the standards of your compassion? Are they just part of the price you are willing to have others pay so that you can feel good about yourself?

  8. Put differently, are there more victims of crime here in America because of “the federal government isn’t the boss of me” attitude” or because we have no control of our borders?

    Considering most studies of the matter have indicated that immigrants are, if anything, less likely to engage in illegal activity than are citizens, I’d say that’s a question with no easy answer.

    Truth be told, very few folks leave their homeland and come to America just to snatch Grandma’s purse.

  9. Dolphin,

    I don’t disagree with anything you said. To be sure the great majority of illegals are peaceful. But some are not. It seems to me that minimizing the actions of those who do commit violent crimes by playing the race card does not help the serious debate.

    Highlighting the deaths of two law enforcement officers as a generic attack on those who dare to think that the federal government has overstretched its boundaries is no more fair than characterizing all illegals as dangerous criminals. There are bad examples in both groups but the issues are far more complex and need to be discussed as such.

  10. Mark,

    You’re missing the point, I think.

    Read the sentence B. wrote immediately following the one you quoted. Certain politicians are actively trying to capitalize on the idea that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction on federal issues. People are dying because of this absurd, unconstitutional notion and some politicians think it’s a great thing to base a campaign on.

    You say “[t]here are bad examples in both groups[.]” OK, fine, there’s good and bad in everything. But it’s one thing for bad to exist, it’s completely another to raise it up as a virtue.

  11. Mark, your serious debates always end up with you pontificating and not listening to anyone else. But I will still strive to point out to you that you’re drawing a false equivalency. How many illegal immigrants kill people they perceive as being opposed to illegal immigration?

  12. Dolphin,

    “But it’s one thing for bad to exist, it’s completely another to raise it up as a virtue.”

    That assumes a belief in serious limits on the power of the federal government is somehow bad. I do not accept that premise and note that neither did the people who wrote the Constitution. They wanted an effective central government but not an all powerful one. I suspect, for example, that you supported Chicago’s handgun ban and opposed its overturning by the Supreme Court.

    It should also be mentioned that the Arizona law is based on the federal law and does not attempt to determine the laws regarding immigration or citizenship. It simply prescribes policy for identifying those who are here illegally.

    Aunt B.,

    I try to listen carefully. My problem with your positions is not their specific merits, we often agree there, but their utter lack of any consistent underlying principles.

    Sometimes you support the nanny state as with President Obama’s health care law packed with individual mandates. Then you are outraged when Tennessee focuses on how to reduce obesity in children. The irony is that this is an intrusion that flows quite logically from the basic assumption of national health care that you support, i..e. the public good trumps individual choices on diet. General Kagan seems to be comfortable with that logic when, during her hearings, she refused to oppose the idea of a law that set out legal and illegal foods.

    Similarly, you use the deaths of two law enforcement members to tar everyone who favors a limited federal government but pass of incidences of murders by illegals as isolated instances.

    My current favorite is your insistence that opposition to the current scope of federal power is ignoring what you regard as clearly decided law but then you rage when others want the immigration laws followed to the letter.

    I really admire your compassion but sadly we cannot be governed by compassion alone.

  13. Well, then, it’s a good thing that I don’t govern, isn’t it?

    Anyway, it’s a weird thing for you to complain about–that I have no consistent underlying principle–when then you exactly identify an underlying principle–compassion.

    It leads me to conclude that you’re actually not that sad at all that we can’t be governed by compassion, which is fine. Just don’t pretend like you would be or that you can’t figure out what I’m going for.

    Really, the problem is that you want to be governed by rules and logic and it bothers you that I find that to be a paradigm that often needs to be resisted in order to make and keep our society healthy.

    So let’s be honest about it. Your frustration with me and my frustration with you is that I’m never going to just accept that the way you see the world is how the world is and that it’s just natural to have arguments on your terms.

    It’s not.

  14. Mark,
    If you really think that Kagan’s response to the question you refer to implies that she agrees with your logic, then I too must conclude that you do not listen to people, or pay attention to context, but jump to conclusions to keep people on the side of one single line that you think they belong on and must stay on for all time.

    Maybe, maybe, people should be consistent and hold positions coherently according to a couple of large underlying principles that themselves don’t ever conflict. But even if you are right about what people should do, it doesn’t mean that they do.

    And you responding to people’s positions not on their merit or their own reasoning (or your divergent reasoning) but on your sense of how they hold together with other known positions on a blog (not in an election or job interview or other such circumstances) is frustrating to witness and translates as holier-than-thou nitpicking that is anything but compassionate.

    That you even begin with the adjective “nanny” for certain legislation betrays your unwillingness to interact with some of Aunt B’s underlying principles and seem incapable of understanding her reasons for defending universal health care (which actually B usually often argues against but not for reasons you would predict and still permit her to consistently defend the view that states should not waste time and money fighting the new law).

    And you have not yet come to grips with her opposition to anti-obesity campaigns either, despite her endless endeavors to make herself clear. She is not bothered by people, even the government, being concerned with children’s health (although that does not mean she supports any and all means to monitor it). Rather, she is increasingly frustrated that people talk not about health but about obesity despite clear evidence that obesity is not a medical but a social problem, and an offensive one at that.

    I am sure that Aunt B is not always consistent. None of us are, even upon careful scrutiny and effort to be so. I am also sure that she is substantially more consistent that you take her to be because you are unable to 1) listen to her reasons and not only her positions, 2) think that people who share positions can do so for contradictory reasons, and 3) move across the liberal-conservative divide (or fail to even bridge it) on issues.

    Are you sure that it is each of us who is inconsistent? Might it be that the identities “liberal” or “conservative” or “Democrat” or “Republican” themselves aren’t consistent?

Comments are closed.