Skip to main content

Jim Demint
Jim DeMint, lamenting the results of that thing called "democracy"
Heritage head Jim DeMint:
Yes, I can hear many conservative friends saying to me right around this point: "Jim, we agree with you that ObamaCare is going to wreck the country, but elections have consequences." I have three responses [...]

[T]he lives of most Americans are not dominated by the electoral cycle. They shouldn't have to wait three more years for Congress to give them relief from this law, especially when the president has so frequently given waivers to his friends. Full legislative repeal may not be possible while President Obama remains in office, but delaying implementation by withholding funds from a law that is proven to be unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is a reasonable and necessary fight.

We had to wait several election cycles to end the Republican war in Iraq, because that's how democracy works. The party in power implements stuff, and if people don't like it, they take it out on that party at the polls. It's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

DeMint dismisses the 2012 elections as a "mistrial on ObamaCare" which is rich. If it was a "mistrial," it was because Republican primary voters didn't care enough about the issue to nominate one of the architects of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, and the American public didn't consider it the second coming of Hitler. But the law was certainly litigated.

But the more fundamental problem here is DeMint's utter rejection of our nation's democracy. He doesn't like something, he shouldn't have to use the democratic procedures enshrined in the Constitution he (and every teabagger) claims to revere. Wait for the next election? That's for chumps!

Expect their hostility toward democracy to grow as demographic changes make it harder for them to win anything outside of rural and southern states and heavily gerrymandered districts.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  DeMint is the new Henry Kissinger! (15+ / 0-)

    "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Democratic due to the irresponsibility of its people."

    Remarkably, we still have the old Henry Kissinger so they'll have to settle it with fisticuffs.  My money's on the original.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:32:33 AM PDT

  •  But Romney did run on full repeal (14+ / 0-)

    While we know Romney was the architect behind the whole basic policy of Obamacare, Republican primary voters were told many, many many times that Romney was for full repeal.

    He used the sound bite, executive order on day 1 bla bla bla more times than I can count.

    If there was even one clear issue in 2012 it was Obamacare. Everything else Romney - especially in the general beginning with the first debate - did his best to obscure the differences on.

  •  If what DeMint says about the ACA were true (9+ / 0-)

    he would still be wrong.

    However, since his objections are 90% lies he is wrong with a super-sized side of wrong fries and a wrong shake.

    I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:35:21 AM PDT

  •  They hate religion too (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Marti, Matt Z, JML9999, a2nite, Forest Deva

    They are a paradoy of humanity

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:35:25 AM PDT

  •  Their fear of losing power will for sure increase (8+ / 0-)

    the Crazy.

    •  3rd time may do it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think there's something about losing a third time that's historically scared a political party straight.

      Let's withhold judgment until 2016. If the GOP loses 3 presidential elections in a row, that may scare them back to rationality.

      For now, I think a lot of Republicans believe Obama is an outlier, just temporarily able to win with a big minority vote, and that when the "slick Chicago politician" (and worse things they like to say) it'll be a true conservative era.

      •  All of those who put their time and donations into (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Captain Pants, biloxiblues, aitchdee

        electing the President will hopefully take all the skills and determination they have developed into the races from here on out.  With the President's re-election we have had a chance to learn to work during and between election cycles shifting from issues to electoral gains and back again.  Instead of flash in the pan involvement this is becoming a full time perspective on the responsibility of citizenship.

        There can be nothing more threatening to the evil that Demint suggests in subverting democracy than the good of sincere, committed and thoughtful citizens working hard to make this democracy solid and dedicated to making peoples lives better, and enshrining fairness.  Its a solidness that we require to be forever vigilant.  Thank you President Obama and all others who have guided this coalescing around a core of commitment.

      •  I don't want to scare them, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberal Jon, biloxiblues, bryduck

        I want to destroy them.
        Make the name Republican into an epithet, spat out in the same tone as traitor.
        I want to see these bas+ards driven back under the rocks they climb out of and never bother US again, gone the way of the Whigs, shuffled off this mortal coil, gone bye bye, an EX-party.
        And I want it to happen before the next election.
        Ted Cruz/Sarah Palin/TeaParty'16!
        This would be a third party development that would actually be good for us.
        Let the TeaBaggers primary the more reasonable Republicans, let the 2014 campaign be the arena for a split in the GOP.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:17:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Part of me prefers a moderate GOP (0+ / 0-)

          On some level, I'm afraid that with 2 political parties, any random accident might put the GOP in power again.

          I'd rather when that day comes that the GOP wasn't totally radicalized.

          So be careful what you wish for. Carter wanted the radical Reagan in 1980 instead of a moderate GOP challenger. That doesn't always end well.

          •  If the Republican Party bifurcates, (0+ / 0-)

            with the Knotheaded extremists going one way and the Greedy bas+ards going the other way, both parties will be considerably smaller than the Dems.
            I would hope that the Greeed Party attracts the CorporoDems and the corporate funding but can't attract enough votes to get anywhere, while the TeaBaggers march off into the wilderness for the rest of eternity.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:31:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What moderate GOP? They embraced evil Ronnie (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV, ssgbryan

            & never looked back.

            They embraced evil RW evangelicals & never looked back.

            They embraced evil WS & never looked back.

            They are a coalition of evil fracturing because their goals aren't the same anymore.

            nosotros no somos estúpidos

            by a2nite on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:30:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And thanks to the NRA they're armed to the teeth (6+ / 0-)

      this won't end well

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:41:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If we had a parliamentary system (6+ / 0-)

    where elections could be called instead of relying on a pre-existing schedule, maybe DeMint could get his way.

    Or, most of his party would be voted out based on recent shenanigans...

    1. Books are for use.

    by looty on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:36:35 AM PDT

  •  If you think he hates it now (6+ / 0-)

    Wait until his party is reduced to its strength in the House of 1933 or so.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:39:46 AM PDT

  •  The vote of 2/3 of both houses (9+ / 0-)

    of Congress is necessary for repeal of ACA.

    Mr. DeMint, you don't have that.

    Nor could you get your man into the White House.

    The votes have been cast and "the American people" (as your teabagger ilk are so fond of saying) have decided.

    And the approval ratings for the GOP indicate that "the American people" have no regrets" in choosing a second term for President Obama

  •  Most disturbing comment I read from a... (12+ / 0-)

    Redstater was just before the 2012 election when they were still absolutely convinced that they were going to win it all.

    After an optimistic "won't the liberals cry" she went on to write, [paraphrase] "we have to make changes to ensure this never happens again"  by which she meant lose control of the Congress and White House.

    These people actually hate democracy and would not shed a tear if a dictatorship took its place; just so long it was right wing.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:41:54 AM PDT

  •  DeMint is a Christian Dominionist. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, RockyMtnLib, shoeless, CwV, aitchdee

    Democracy is a waste of time if you believe the Bible (the revised Dominionist version, of course) is the ultimate authority.

  •  They love democracy as their path to power, (8+ / 0-)

    after that they hate it. Kinda like fetus vs. actual child.

    "I don't love writing, but I love having written" ~ Dorothy Parker // Visit my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

    by jan4insight on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:44:19 AM PDT

  •  At least he's finally being honest. (17+ / 0-)

    Conservatives would mount a coup if they thought they could get away with it.

    Civilization is a thin veneer and democracy is a single coat of varnish.

  •  it makes me sad (8+ / 0-)

    that the region i am from is the primary cause for this type of obstructionism and outright stupidity.

    Expect their hostility toward democracy to grow as demographic changes make it harder for them to win anything outside of rural and southern states and heavily gerrymandered districts
    I happen to live in both of those conditions right now, withe consequence being that my Rep. is the ever-crazier Teabagger Supreme Paul Broun.  
    It makes me even sadder that so many of the people who are hurt by Teabagger obstructionism are the people that support them.  Lots of people from the South are recipients of poor education results which leads them to a) poverty from low-wage jobs b) ignorance c) the damage to their health and well-being by a and b d) dependence on government programs which the Teabaggers want to eliminate which would further damage that sub-set of the population.  This is not a mistake but a calculated political move by the Ol' Boys Network who has governed the South since before the Civil War to keep everybody in their place.  The sooner that the impoverished Southern masses turn off Faux Nooz and embrace politicians who actually tell them the truth about their situation, the better, for the whole country.
  •  but "we're not a democracy but a Constitutional (5+ / 0-)

    Republic", just like North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Sahrawi, and Vietnam

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

  •  Well at least they have sorta kinda come up with (0+ / 0-)

    a bumper sticker. "Waivers to his friends."  Took them a while...

  •  proven failure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, Greenfinches, mmacdDE

    Obamacare (really Pelosi/Romney Care) has not been a proven failure--it really hasn't even started yet.  Technical glitches are to be expected for a program expected to enroll tens of millions of people.  The part already implemented include not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions--not a failure.  Limiting profit to be made by insurers, not a failure.
    The old system is a terrible--proven--failure.  European type health care gets much better results spending almost half as much--copying that is not wrong.  Instead of criticizing Rs for their hatred of democracy, we should refute their premise--Obamacare is not a failure.  Dems never learn offense--always play defense--must be we lack the killer instinct.

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

  •  let's observe them in action: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    although, perhaps from a safe distance ...

    (i dearly love these creatures, but this. is. perfect.)

    Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes. @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.

    by greenbird on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:50:05 AM PDT

  •  Authoritarian-Brained Conservatives Like to (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, shoeless, geez53, RockyMtnLib, ssgbryan

    dictate to others what they can't do -- they hate representative democracy and love fascism.

    Teabaggers don't belong in the US, especially the browner it gets.

  •  Why bother to even have elections? (8+ / 0-)

    If Demint is right, maybe we should get rid of elections and just let the Heritage Foundation pick our leaders. Or maybe we can be like Iran and still have elections, but the real power would be in the hands of a bunch of clerics.

    These people are dangerous. Very dangerous. But only as dangerous as we allow them to be.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:54:40 AM PDT

  •  The more things (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, shoeless, RockyMtnLib

    change the more they remain the same.
    There is always that segment of society that is going to go bat-shit crazy when humanity progresses and their small self centered world becomes a little to small for comfort.

    one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. MLK

    by Klick2con10ue on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:56:51 AM PDT

  •  Voter Suppression, Election Fraud, Gerrymandering, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, ssgbryan

    etc. are the Party of Stupid & Offensive's only hope to win elected public office.

    Representative Democracy is NO friend of the Party of Stupid & Offensive.

  •  How did DeMint become head of the Heritage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Foundation when he doesn't even know that Obamacare is a plan that was developed by the Heritage Foundation?

    The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

    by shoeless on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:02:36 AM PDT

  •  where was Mr. DeMint on the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Iraq War vote when some of us were saying that the war would wreck this country and the country of Iraq?

    He voted for it:Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

    The bill on the Iraq war is into the 3 or 4 trillion dollars including helping the American victims of the war - our soldiers and their families - try to recover from their physical and mental wounds.

    Re: the computer mess on ACA, I wonder which government contractors are involved.
    I’ve had some ridiculous experiences with outside for profit contractors mismanaging my medicare claims..........

    These outside contractors need to be thoroughly examined IMO to see who and why. Starting with Halliburton.

    Finally people have gotten sick and tired of being had and taken for idiots. Mikhail Gorbachev

    by eve on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:03:29 AM PDT

  •  And what will the media do with this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I hate to say it, but the media still has a lot of power as to how this thing will play out. Sure, they can claim this is just "one opinion" or "one side" of the argument (of course Faux news will present it as the ONLY viable solution). In effect, however, that would be equating anti-democracy with democracy -- and that's dangerous ground to tread for the "so-called" independent media to take. It will come back to bite them -- a deep, red, swollen, infected and deteriorating bite that will not easily heal. It'll be interesting to see how they play this with their tendency toward false equivalency. Would love to catch them with their pants down. Again.

    Now THAT's the president I voted for ... again!

    by RevJoe on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

  •  They don't hate democracy; (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, annieli, sillycarrot

    they hate the demos -- the people, the public. That is why they refuse to acknowledge that a democracy and a republic are, essentially, the same thing -- an entity organized the take care of the people's affairs in two different languages.

    The problem is that the Cons cannot take care. They are not caretakers; they are needy people who need to be cared for and, to top it all off, reassured that they are not as incompetent as they obviously are. That is why, IMHO, they are jealous of the obviously disabled. Those are people who get care because they claim a disability, while the Cons go to great lengths to hide theirs. That is why they are also jealous of what they call "entitlements." They consider it unfair that people who should be making obeisance to them because of their ownership rights, are claiming to have human rights and, effectively challenging the superiority of material assets.

    Dubya said the U.S. Is an ownership society. The insistence on human rights subverts that. If the accumulation of monetary wealth doesn't count for much, how are the Cons going to demonstrate that they are made of superior stuff? It really is an existential question. If people can't be defined by what they own, what are they?

  •  Here's Whats Truly Exposed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    CItizens United allowed outside money to influence the outcome of a local election.

    Election are won or loss on one of two things , policy differences or personal attacks.

    Guess how most of these folks got elected?
    Was the MEDIA at any time held responsible for not REPORTING THE ISSUES??????
    Instead they focused on the tick-for-tack , what's only  relevant is the reality TV aspect of the campaigns.

    How many 2010 Governors ran on the abortion issue?
    Where's the MEDIA on this one????

    Here's how the media skirts their responsibility.. those aren't NATIONAL ISSUES those are regional , or local issues.
    It's difficult to report economic issues .. too WONKY.
    (in other words , the American people are to stupid to understand. I don't blame the student I blame the teacher)

    Back to Topic..
    CITIZEN UNITED allows outside money to buy congressional seats . those seats are now a caucus that speaks for that interest and that interest alone .

    Did the 144 congressman (who voted to DEFAULT) not think about how a government default was going to hurt their districts?

    Did they care?

    Ready to do it again?

    That's the power of outside money.

    Keep It Real Folks

  •  kos, Article 1, section 7 (0+ / 0-)

    of the US Constitution states that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.."

    The House is absolutely within its constitutional powers to defund Obamacare. Our government is supposed to have a system of checks and balances to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority". de Tocqueville, Jefferson and Madison, for example, were concerned about this.

    Also, our country isn't a democracy. It's a republic. In a democracy, the majority can impose its will. The checks and balances specified in the Constitution are meant to protect us from this.

    •  Exactly!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, geez53

      but "we're not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic", just like North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Sahrawi, and Vietnam

      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

      by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anarchy,Anocracy,Kritarchy,"Republic",Theocracy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

        by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:51:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, and if we don't follow our Constitution (0+ / 0-)

        we'll become increasingly like the countries you mention and less like the country we should be.

        •  but you say:"our country isn't a democracy" (0+ / 0-)

          we must therefore be a Constitutional Republic as you said,  just like North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Sahrawi, and Vietnam, otherwise we could be increasingly(sic) like a Monarchy with Kardashians or Kennedys as our Royal Family...

          Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

          by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:20:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A republican system makes (0+ / 0-)

            a monarchy less likely, since in a republic, power is diffused.

            •  actually if you look at the link there are so many (0+ / 0-)

              more monarchies in this reality on this planet

              Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

              by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:35:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Could you elaborate on your comment? (0+ / 0-)


                •  thanks for your concern (0+ / 0-)

                  Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

                  by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:37:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think you're being (0+ / 0-)

                    too harsh on yourself.

                    •  As opposed to you thinking quite highly... (0+ / 0-)

                      of yourself for engaging in the tired right wing ritual of arguing that America is not a democracy.  It is widely accepted that a constitutional republic is a limited form of democracy so for all intents and purposes it is appropriate to refer to the United States as such.

                      •  I don't (0+ / 0-)

                        think unusually highly of myself. I have a healthy amount of self esteem, no more, no less. I think we agree that the US is a constitutional republic. That was my point all along. It isn't a pure democracy, as you said.

                        Sometimes facts can appear to be "tired arguments".

                        •  The fact is that Kos never referred to the US as (0+ / 0-)

                          a "pure democracy" per the qualification that you are now acknowledging, thus your initial correction was unwarranted... and petty.

                          •  My initial post (0+ / 0-)

                            was warranted and certainly not petty. Kos's point was that since Obama won the election, under our democratic system, there was nothing that could be done to stop ACA implementation until the next election cycle. That's not true, however. As I've said, under our representative government, the House has the constitutional authority to withhold ACA funding.
                            Kos is a major Democratic Party mover/shaker/stirrer and it's shocking, and more than a little disappointing, that he doesn't understand how our government is supposed to work.
                            Anyway, good discussion. Have to get back to work.

                          •  The sudden embrace and overstating of (0+ / 0-)

                            "the power of the purse" wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that despite receiving fewer votes, the Republicans currently have control of the house (much the way inmates would run the asylum)?  The power of the purse does not exist solely within one half of one branch of our government, it is shared.  That is why the Senate has the final say in approving and the President has the ability to veto.  

                            It is highly disingenuous to suggest that the intent of our system of government, under whatever label suits your needs, was to repeal or enact laws through hostage-taking rather than winning elections.  ACA funding was never in doubt and mentioning it only serves to undermine your credibility.

                          •  You're confusing (0+ / 0-)

                            the passage of a bill into law and funding the implementation of a law. You're right that creating a law requires passage by the House and Senate and signature by the President. The funding process is different. Only the House has the authority to introduce spending bills. The intent of the Constitution is to restrain the power of the Federal Government and giving the House, which is closer to the People than the Senate, the power of the purse is consistent with restraining government.
                            If the Democrats controlled the House and we had a Republican President and Republican controlled Senate, the Dems would probably use the same tactic and  kos would probably endorse it. As far as which party are the inmates , that just depends on which side of the aisle you're on and which party is in power.

                          •  No, your hostage-taking pals are confused... (0+ / 0-)

                            as are you.  Shutting down the government and nearly defaulting on the debt was of no consequence to the already funded ACA.  Any spending bill the House introduces has to make it through the Senate, then survive a potential veto.  Had the intent ever been for the House to have unilateral control over spending, I'm quite certain that America's founders would have made it so.  Instead they created a series of checks and balances, encouraging compromise but ultimately favoring the majority, which best reflects the will of the people and brings us full circle back to... if you don't like the ACA, work to improve it or win some elections and repeal it.

                            As for your attempt at false equivalence, the Democrats did not cause America's credit rating to be downgraded over Medicare Part D.

                          •  Please read my comment. (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree that spending bills have to be approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President, however, in my post I said that the House has the unilateral power to INTRODUCE spending bills. If the House doesn't include funding for a particular law in a spending bill, that law isn't funded. Our founders intended the House to have unilateral power over spending as part of our system of checks and balances. In England,  the House of Commons also had this power. The founders acknowledged that the central government had to be sufficiently powerful, but they felt that power had to be limited.
                            Joan McCarter had a diary on Monday saying that a recent poll showed a large percentage of the US population, 47%, oppose the ACA. Republican control of the House gives those people a say.
                            If Democrats don't want Republicans to have this much control over spending, they should win some elections and take control of the House.
                            Regarding your false equivalence comment, both parties are guilty of too much spending. I disagree with Dr. Krugman, the deficit is a huge problem. And I don't have any "pals" in the House that I know of. At least they haven't invited me to any DC parties!

                          •  Last time I checked... (0+ / 0-)

                            Republicans still controlled the House (despite receiving fewer overall votes) and the ACA remains funded, how can this be?  Is the much vaunted purse truly no more powerful than a piece of paper in a suggestion box?  Are you implying that our founders forgot to cross a few tees since the Senate can amend spending bills?  Or maybe, just maybe, it has always been understood that the power of the purse was never meant to be abused by the fringe of the fringe in an attempt to impose their will on the majority.

                            If you truly believe the deficit is a huge problem, tell your people to stop wasting millions trying to repeal the ACA, a law that helps reduce spending.

                          •  Here are answers to your questions: (0+ / 0-)

                            1. "Republicans still controlled the House (despite receiving fewer overall votes) and the ACA remains funded, how can this be?  
                            The ACA remains funded since the House introduced spending bills which included funding for it. Republicans weren't united in the move to defund.

                            2."Is the much vaunted purse truly no more powerful than a piece of paper in a suggestion box?"

                            No. The ability of the House to unilaterally introduce spending bills is very powerful, but not infinitely so.

                            3. "Are you implying that our founders forgot to cross a few tees since the Senate can amend spending bills?"

                            Not at all. Our founders gave the House a lot of power, but they crossed all their tees and even dotted their i's  by giving the Senate the power to amend and approve spending bills. This restrained the House's power.

                            4." Or maybe, just maybe, it has always been understood that the power of the purse was never meant to be abused by the fringe of the fringe in an attempt to impose their will on the majority."

                            The 47% of the population opposed to the ACA cited by Joan M. is hardly a "fringe". The power of the purse was also meant to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority.

                            I don't think I have any "people" in the government. At least I've never met any of them. The "millions" you claim they've wasted is nothing compared to the trillions wasted by the Feds over the years on all sorts of programs, including the ACA. They wasted about $ 300M alone on

                            Please feel free to ask any other questions you have. I'm here to help.

                          •  You're here to be helped. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's hardly unexpected that even though you've taken your first steps outside the protection of the right wing echo chamber, you'd act out and try to assert yourself.  Much the way a child does upon discovering that the world works differently than he or she thought, you are finding out that throwing a fit doesn't mean getting one's way.  Such lessons will serve you well in the years to come as the fringe views you represent continue to lose support.

                            The Republican majority in the House was and is united in their desire to repeal, defund, delay or otherwise hamper the ACA.  They failed after finally coming to terms with the limits of their power and out of fear over the repercussions of their reckless and destructive tactics, which were rightfully opposed by the vast majority of Americans.

                            As you've learned over the last few days, our government is in fact a form of democracy and attempts by the fringe to subvert it are viewed as hostile towards it.  That was largely the point of the diary, although in your zeal to spread right wing talking points concerning matters that at best you only have a loose grasp of, it escaped you.

                          •  If you want to discuss (0+ / 0-)

                            the issues, please put together a valid argument. An angry rant isn't very effective.

                          •  Ready to take your toys (or weak tea) and (0+ / 0-)

                            head home?  Is that the stomping of feet I hear?  Perhaps the whine of a Hoveround?

                          •  OK. Take a deep breath and relax. (0+ / 0-)

                            A valid argument has to be coherent. You're all over the map. Why don't you start by taking one of my points that you disagree with and posting your counter-argument.

                            Can someone here please help there^3? kos? Anyone?

                          •  Right wing troll wants help? From Kos? (0+ / 0-)

                            That's good stuff right there.

                            You've already conceded that our system of government is a form of democracy and that the House of Representatives power of the purse is limited to introducing spending bills, thus dooming their hostage-taking.  If you need anything else, you're free to ask.

                          •  Read my post. (0+ / 0-)

                            I said someone please help there^3 (there to the third power, aka. theretherethere), that's you. You're the one I'm calling on kos to help.

                            I haven't conceded anything.  I've always said that the power of the purse concerns the INRODUCTION of spending bills.

                            Please re read my posts. Slowly this time.

                          •  You could be suffering (0+ / 0-)

                            from short term memory loss in addition to being full of it.  Take your own advice... calm down and start over at the beginning, get schooled a second time.

                            While you're doing that, keep in mind that this isn't Redstate or whatever bubble you're accustomed to.  You're free to comment but no one really cares, least of all Kos, what a right wing troll thinks/wants.  I found you slightly amusing in your alpha posturing, that's about it.

                          •  There cubed, some comments: (0+ / 0-)

                            "You're free to comment but no one really cares, least of all Kos, what a right wing troll thinks/wants."

                            So you're completely close-minded to any opinions you disagree with. And kos is even more close-minded than you. How sad. What were saying again about a "bubble"?

                            I apologize for upsetting you by bringing up the Constitution and the truth. I'll make a note not to do that again..

                          •  I actually enjoy spirited debates but... (0+ / 0-)

                            you need to elevate your game beyond repeating the crap you're being fed by right wing radio jocks.  It isn't having different views that makes one a troll, it's intent.  Bring something new to the table, speak your heart and maybe then you'll have accomplished something worth apologizing for.  

                          •  If you think my argument is crap (0+ / 0-)

                            explain how I'm wrong when I say that the House was acting Constitutionally when they introduced a spending bill that did not include ACA funding.

                            Let's have a debate.

                          •  You're trying to redefine your original argument (0+ / 0-)

                            that America is not a democracy and that the House has the power to defund the ACA.

                            Our system of government is a form of democracy and the House has the ability only to propose defunding the ACA (they started off by demanding repeal you'll recall).

                            As for divining the intent of the Founders, attempts to cast the agonizingingly slow death of the modern Republican Party as being about minority rights are hysterical.  You have a bright future in comedy, of the unintentional variety.

                          •  You're wrong, (0+ / 0-)

                            the House CAN defund the ACA since they have the sole power to appropriate funding. If they don't introduce a spending bill that includes ACA funding, then ACA isn't funded.

                            The intent of the Founders was to give the House the sole power to introduce spending bills. That's why they included the following language in the Constitution ""All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.." And as I said in my first post "The House is absolutely within its constitutional powers to defund Obamacare. " So my original argument is unchanged.
                            I'm disappointed you don't want to debate my point.

                          •  It's disappointing that you're being disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

                            or are truly ignorant with regard to how the ACA is funded, the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, the Senate's ability to amend whatever the House sends over and/or pretty much anything outside the usual pseudo constitutional claptrap that insufferable blowhards on the right are so fond of spewing.

                            Whatever your reasons, you remain wrong that the House can defund the ACA... they tried and failed, just like you.

        •  Evil men used the "constitution" to rob (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          My ancestors including creating Jim Crow. So it depends on who is following  the law & what their purpose is.

          Evil men used the 14th amendment to say that corporations are people & evil men said that money was speech using the 1st & 4 evil men & one evil woman stole the votes of the people of FL in 2000.

          We the people need to participate more, but that is a different problem.

          I think it is way past due for a major re-write. It is an antiquated document written for & by evil rich men who thought slavery was ok.

          nosotros no somos estúpidos

          by a2nite on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The countries you list (0+ / 0-)

        are republics in name only. In actuality they're all dictatorships. Their legislatures have no real power.

        •  no real power like a "tyranny of the majority" /nt (0+ / 0-)

          Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

          by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so we're a "Republic in name only" as well /nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

            by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:25:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If any one branch of government becomes dominant (0+ / 0-)

              yes we will become a "republic in name only". That's why the House has the power of the purse, to provide a check on the power of the executive branch.

              •  so we are still a democracy and not a republic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

                by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:34:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The executive branch has too much power IMHO. (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Thanks for your concern eom (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:


                    (January 1970) A couple of days after the State of the Union address, Democrats and the press finally got a chance to mock Richard Nixon. The occasion was a state visit by Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Great Britain -- and the official unveiling of new White House police uniforms, inspired by the honor guards Nixon had seen in Europe. The cops were wearing double-breasted white tunics with starred epaulets, gold piping, draped braid, and high black plastic hats decorated with a large White House crest. “They look like old-time movie ushers,” said the Buffalo News. “The Student Prince” said the Chicago Daily News. In the Chicago Tribune, a Nixon friend, columnist Walter Trohan, was more serious, saying the uniforms belonged onstage, calling them “frank borrowing from decadent European monarchies, which is abhorrent to this country’s democratic tradition.”

                    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

                    by annieli on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:03:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The executive branch was too powerful then also. (0+ / 0-)
                      •  I agree that we don't have a real democracy (0+ / 0-)

                        Representational democracy is deliberately designed to curtail democracy, to limit the voice of the people. Several of the founders felt that too much democracy was a threat to the "reasonable, responsible people," which basically meant that people of property and wealth "who understand things" should be the ones who govern.

                        In the first presidential election, only 6% voted, after excluding people without property, women, and people of color.

                        Nowadays, most elected on the national level are from the wealthy class. The poor and middle class (the 99%) are not represented in proportion to their numbers. One cannot become elected unless one is well-connected with the wealthy class. Representatives in Washington are not 99% from the middle and lower class.

                        The word democracy is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

                        This is barely a democracy on a national level.

                        Democrats are typically supportive of this lack of democracy.

                        Anarchists believe that if you allow the people to decide issues of their communities for themselves, they will rise to the occasion, and with more experience in self-management, will, over time, make better decisions for themselves. When people directly experience the effects of their own decisions, they more quickly make corrections, rather than exist for decades in a stalemate, leading to lack of social progress.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Wed Oct 23, 2013 at 03:09:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think that the founders instituted (0+ / 0-)

                          a representative democracy also out of a concern that the majority could impose their will on the minority. A representative form of government increases the power of the minority, so I think that it actually enhances the voice of the people. It prevents the minority voice from being drowned out.
                          I agree that our politicians are out of touch with the concerns of most people. Many of the people in Congress have been in power for far too long and have become corrupted by special interests. I think term limits would go a long way toward fixing this.
                          I think anarchy sounds attractive in some ways, but for a representative government to work, you also need the rule of law. Our Constitution balances the needs of the civil society and the need for individual freedom very well.
                          I don't think a stalemate or gridlock in the central government in necessarily a bad thing. Societal progress is quicker without an oppressive central government and the founders purposely included a system of checks and balances in the Constitution to restrain  Federal government power.

                          •  I don't agree (0+ / 0-)
                            It prevents the minority voice from being drowned out.
                            I think it does just the opposite. It takes the voice away from most minorities, allowing just one minority, the wealthy class, to dominate.

                            The founders weren't worried about the voice of the slaves, or of Indians, or of women, or of white males without property, but rather were worried about these oppressed voices overrunning the exploiters. That's why they limited the vote to white males with property. They didn't trust all of those who were deliberately excluded to protect the interests of the wealthy class.

                            And to this day, such minorities have not prevailed well in political power. Women, blacks, and other minorities are still paid less then men, workers still have very little clout, and the 99% is still being exploited.

                            Direct democracy doesn't have to give the majority too much power over minorities if it is structured the right way. Quite the contrary, it can actually empower minorities, since the advantage of money is removed from the equation.

                            Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States is worth a read in this regard.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 12:43:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks. I'll check out Zinn's book. (0+ / 0-)
    •  That's why minorities like the descendants of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Former slaves have had to form coalitions to form a majority so as to not return to slavery which a significant number of Americans would like.

      Of course there was plenty of compromising with an evil minority of evil white men to continue slavery for forever so as to not make trouble. So that was an evil minority standing in the way of progress then as now.

      So a stupid evil minority is why we don't have nice things in America. We are held back by people catering to stupid.

      And the house hasn't been doing its job since Bonehead took over including passing a budget......

      And you should recall that legislation whether for revenue or whatever have to be passed by both houses AND signed by the President. Not likely that he's gonna go along with getting rid of his signature legislation.

      ACA defunding votes just gives evil RW extremist TGOPers something to do while really doing nothing.

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forget (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, annieli

      those bills also need to be approved by the Senate and signed by the President.

      If the President vetoes, BOTH houses need to pass them with a 2/3 majority to override his veto.

      That ain't gonna happen.

      If you recall, the House has passed those bills - 42 times. They die right there, because they never pass the Senate, or get to the President.

      You might want to read the REST of the Constitution before you quote it.

      •  I'm aware of the process for bill approval. (0+ / 0-)

        My original comment concerned the power of the House to appropriate funding. It's within the constitutional authority of the House to withhold funding for the implementation of laws that have been signed by the President.

        •  Which they did (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, annieli

          42 times already.

          It never went anywhere, because it never got out of the Senate.

          The House cannot UNILATERALLY do anything. Apparently you miss that point.

          •  The House can unilaterally (0+ / 0-)

            decline to appropriate funding for implementation of a law since all bills for raising revenue originate in the House.

            I agree that they can't unilaterally repeal a law. The House voted 42 times to repeal the ACA. Since this wasn't approved by the Senate it didn't go anywhere. According to the Constitution, that's just as it should be.

    •  Incorrect (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, a2nite

      The U.S. is a democracy. It also happens to be a republic. The two are not incompatible.

      You apparently believe democracy means only direct democracy, where every eligible citizen votes on every issue, presumably all 100+ million of us milling around in togas in an enormous public square in the middle of Kansas. As far as I can recall, that pretty much went out of fashion sometime after Socrates drank the hemlock.

      The modern type of democracy is called representative democracy and the Oxford dictionary defines it as: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

      In short, we have direct voting for president, senators, and representatives (democracy) combined with strong sub-national governments of the states and one federal chamber consisting of representatives based on the existence of each state rather than its proportional population (republic).

      I see this meme all the time, most frequently among Teabaggers, about the U.S. being a republic not a democracy. I really don't understand what their point or wish is about that. Something like if we just admit that the U.S. is not a democracy the Kenyan Muslim socialist will vanish in a puff of smoke, taking his Abominationcare with him?

      •  When I mentioned democracy, I meant (0+ / 0-)

        "direct democracy". A "representative democracy" is a republic. We do have direct voting for senators and representatives, but not for President. We have the Electoral College for that.

        The "meme" that the US is a republic is a fact. I made my point above namely that the House defunding a law is Constitutional. I didn't say anything about a "Kenyan, Muslim socialist."

  •  Hence the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" quip.

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:27:05 AM PDT

  •  Gee, it's too bad he doesn't feel the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    same way about gun control laws.  Look how many are dying and/or unable to work for the rest of their lives...

    It's too bad that none of the republicans felt anything but victorious when they defeated  legislation even though more than 90% of the people wanted it.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:45:52 AM PDT

  •  You know who else hates democracy? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, waterstreet2013

    The libertarians who are funding the rebranded religious right.

  •  Jim DeMentia (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Theretherethere, waterstreet2013

    This guy was a boob as a senator and is now destroying whatever undeserved reputation Heritage had as a "think" tank. Strange how he and Cruz, who can't get the votes, presume to speak for the American people. They are quick to condemn liberal elitists while never seeing how the term applies more so to themselves.

  •  This is a really dirty group of people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, waterstreet2013

    Remember Richard Mellon Scafie, the bank roller if the "Arkansas Project" The smears against Bill Clinton. He is on the board of Heritage. They are extremely dirty and know to attack in a second term.

    Google Scaifie and get your update.

  •  Michael Needham (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Public enemy number 1. He is the one responsible for all the Tea Party meetings last summer that spread the propaganda.

  •  Conservatives hate Democracy (0+ / 0-)

    From the party of "I've got mine", what would you expect?

  •  Constitution just a rag (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don’t see enough in the media about how virulently anti-democratic these guys are. DeMint, the 7th amendment folks, the voter restrictions, Obama’s elections – they can’t stand to see their Randian wet dream sullied somehow by the fact that people actually choose to have policies that support the public welfare like expanded health care, SS, Medicare, environmental protection. They would like to do away with the “wetwear” and have their overlords at the Heritage Foundation choose their leaders accordingly. I recently had long “conversation” with one of these guys – nice, smart guy, sends his kids to public school – who wanted to privatize the public sector (including schools) and get rid of regulations to unleash the free market. I pointed out the “free markets” require rule of law,  a level playing field, etc. While he admitted that was necessary, he said you couldn’t trust politicians because they're corrupt and give people “the stuff they want” in order to get reelected. I really stymied him when I said “OK, so what about the Constitution? Do we get rid of our current form of government because it leads to outcomes you don’t like? I have plenty of grievances that government isn’t doing ENOUGH (global warming, infrastructure, income security, etc), but I don’t advocate getting rid of it.” He had nothing…..

    They don’t like to be challenged that the road to their Nirvana requires shredding their seemiingly precious Constitution. Deep down they all believe it’s a disposable rag that will only gum up the great wheels of commerce. They only like the judicial branch when the Supreme Court is run by fellow travelers who can dismantle 100 years of progressive jurisprudence.

  •  I aree that they hate democracy, but it is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    really an error to call them "conservatives", they are, by and large, mostly "reactionaries". By misusing the term conservatives to include reactionaries, we wind up with a world of discourse in which serious conservatives are labelled as "centrists".

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:25:25 AM PDT

  •  It's just as it's always been... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, waterstreet2013

    Republicans claim to love democracy - when it serves their political purposes to do so.  Republicans claim to revere the Constitution - when and only when they think that the Constitution will protect their plans & policies.

    It is only when democracy renders its verdict contrary to their interests, or when the Constitution forbids them from enacting their fiendish plots, that the Republicans' true nature becomes manifest - and we see them for what they've always been, all along:  A cohort of inappropriately-privileged, elitist oligarchs, bent on calling all the shots, for every person, all the time, without end - just because they think they can, and because they think it's their right to do so.

    That's why their heads explode when an election doesn't go their way - because they're genuinely astonished to find out that they're not in the driver's seat anymore.  That's why Karl Rove and most of the Romney campaign were so totally boggled after the 2012 elections.  They couldn't even process the reality that this time, the voice of people said "No!" - and that unlike in 2000, this time it would really stick.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 10:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Do we all have to get wrapped up in rhetoric to the point where we don't even realize the United States is not a democracy?  Slowly now....... Representative Republic.

  •  Impact already covered at DKOS back in (0+ / 0-)


    John Birch Society = Tea Party.

    Back then the head count for Birchers in the House was calculated at 150 Members. Democrats had 201. Boehner's crew had 84.

    Ending the standoff in October, the count for the default/shutdown had it 140 voting Bircher, 87 voting with Boehner.

    Birch Society Republicans: America Now Has Three Major Political Parties

    There's list of slogans in that article. They match up to the high-impact hoaxes that have been generated to drive rightie propaganda for decades.

    The commitment to force a shutdown and work toward a default was picked up in that article:

    A typical Bircher Republican reaction to the "Fiscal Cliff" vote is provided by Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina:

    "We have not cut spending. In fact, the one place we were supposed to cut spending was on the sequester [and associated measures.] But that got delayed. So our question as conservatives is, when are we going to start this battle over spending? We've waited two years now. We're not going to wait much longer."

    When DeMint issued marching orders in March, they were ready and willing to go out and sabotage our Madisonian democracy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site