The Georgia Senate is even crazier than NH Republican state reps

Whackadoodles (4.00 / 3)

And just when Burt and I were starting to get along, you have to bring this up?



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 20:27:42 PM UTC

Don't link me to these guys! (4.00 / 5)

Kathy and I remain in agreement: HCR 6 was just plain nuts. It was ridiculous that it was even brought up.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 01:19:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't say they're "crazier", (4.00 / 2)

because the majority of Republican State Reps in NH voted for this thing.

I would take this as a cautionary tale of how important it is to keep Democratic majorities in the NH State Legislature. Otherwise the whole state would be subject to this nonsense as it would have gone through.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 20:33:22 PM UTC

I was just told that Oklahoma went Georgia one better (0.00 / 0)

Both branches of the legislature in the great state of Oklahoma, home of nutty Sen. Tom Coburn and nuttier Sen. Jim Inhofe, passed this bill. It fell to the (Democratic) Governor to veto it.

In any case, 43 out of 44 Georgia senators voted for the bill. Only 142 out of 162 NH GOP reps did. That makes the Georgians slightly crazier. Let's say, in Fox News terms, NH GOP is Sean Hannity, and Georgia's Senate is Glenn Beck.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 21:07:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not only that... (0.00 / 0)

Didn't the Oklahoma legislature override Governor Brad Henry's veto?

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 22:32:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are republicans in general going senile? (0.00 / 0)

OK so HCR6 was the biggest joke that has ever been proposed to the NH legislature. The fact that we would go back to Jeffersonian principles is rather absurd based on the current affair of things. Our reupblican house members who proposed and voted for this should be taken out of office . I think both republican house members and Georgia senators need a lesson in history. Even though the civil war to many is about slavery the driving force behind it, or some would say the cause of the war, was in fact the fight states rights.The abolition of slavery only became an issue near the middle of the war. This bill in NH was a joke and I am thankful it didnt pass but at least we have a democratic majority and all intelligence was restored with a few chuckles of course. 43-1 in georgia is outragous and what has happened with sanity in this country? Republicans need to wake up and smell the modern age...

---

by: historybuff21 @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 03:25:43 AM UTC

'Tis a puzzlement. (0.00 / 0)

The Republican party has long been portrayed as the party of unanimity, while the Democratic party, made up of strong-minded individuals, often seemed to be divided.  I used to think that the difference was a consequence of Republicans being organized on the principle of obedience, while Democrats come together as a matter of consent, which is sometimes hard to achieve.

Now it seems that Republican cohesion was sort of a sham--an amalgamation of sects whose focus is on being separate.  That is, the Republican party is made up of groups which, perhaps in the interest of asserting the importance of social status (a stratified society), aim to be separate or to separate themselves from the nation.  That is, if they can't be top dog in the kennel, they'd just as soon escape to the wild.

It's this inclination towards separateness which seems to be roiling the party.  As the prospect of being on top, or perhaps even the significance, wanes, their organizing principle seems to have fled.

Segregation, once I became aware of it, seemed like an effort to keep certain populations out--prevent them from participating in normal social intercourse and association.  Now, it seems that a major impulse was a desire for separation, which might be expressed as "we do not want to be part of your union/nation."  Separation.  It's the negation of a principle we hold dear, but it doesn't appeal to people who want to be different and hold themselves out as superior.

It's almost as if the Republican party has become a repository of groups which, for one reason or another, want to be separate and this yearning is all they have in common.  If so, then looking for a reason that others consider rational seems logical.  I think what they're arguing is that the federal government failing to leave speech and churches alone justifies the conclusion that the Constitutional union is dissolved.  It may be sort of like arguing that a marriage is broken when one of the partners has an extra-marital fling.

Of course, if union is a negative principle, then more people wanting to be united in marriage is not a good omen.  Matrimony was good as long as it mimicked the "natural" order--i.e. the male is superior and the female inferior.  A union of equals is un-natural.

It's almost as if "separate but equal" was shorthand for "you may consider yourself equal, but we want to be separate and have nothing to do with you."

---

by: hannah @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:05:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hard to swallow, even harder to stomach. (0.00 / 0)

While I applaud your attempts to find a rational explanation for the Republicanic quandary, I believe there is a much easier explanation. The apparent contradiction neatly fits into the social structure known as tribalism. It is me, and my family, against you and your family, unless we two families are attacked by the families over the hill - then we fight them together till they, or we, are defeated, then we go back to fighting each other. This is exactly the problem we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without another thousand years of some civilizing influence (because the last thousand didn't seem to work in the near east) these societies, including Republicanics will not get beyond Kohlberg's level two moral development. Without that development, which sometimes happens when children go from age 5 to adulthood, there is no long term bargain available for you to complete together. Fundamentally, citizens must choose to believe that there is an external right and wrong that is not dependent upon the traditions of the group to which you belong.

Over and over, Republicanics, when presented with the choice of doing what is part of an over reaching understanding of the principles of civilisation, look over their shoulders at the rest of their herd and decide to circle the wagons and attack. This latest contest about marriage equality, seat belts, transgender discrimination, death penalty and medical marijuana shows up the difference clearly. None of these things do anything to harm Republicanics. And, they remove suffering from some other group to which you don't belong. For a Democrat, following our principles, the decision is made according to broader principles, which often causes some confusion. The certitude of Republicanics comes from this tribal solidarity caused by attack from the outside. We are the only thing that keeps them together. This is a handy thing, from our perspective as it means that as soon as we fall apart, as we did starting in 1984, their cohesion begins to fracture. Sociology 101. Don't you love it? (No)

---

by: xteeth @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 12:28:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone who voted for implied secession should be held accountable in 2010. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 06:30:40 AM UTC

I was trying to think of a way this can be done (4.00 / 1)

You could take the 'this is humor' path- make people understand that this was an insane bill, w-a-a-a-y nuttier than the "balloon bill" the GOP joked about last term, and mock the Republicans who voted for it. Reading the damn thing without laughing is actually pretty hard. I can almost picture the survivalists, free staters, tea baggers, and assorted wingnuts gathered around a table self-importantly arguing abount the language in  some of the clauses and sentences as if it mattered.

Or you could take the 'this is danger' route- explain that the consequence could be Civil War part 2, and question the patriotism and stability of those who signed it.

The one thing we shouldn't do is ignore it. It's a gift.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:58:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think the danger route is the right way to go. (0.00 / 0)

I think the way to deal with it is by pointing out how disgusting it is that they would go this far to play political games.  They refuse to accept that the people didn't vote for them.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:00:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we should make an awful lot more about this. (0.00 / 0)

I think these people are so far out that you have to find the right language to explain to people what this vote actually means -- but it would be worth doing. And Papa Sununu should be asked whether he considers the federal government legitimate.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 22:53:50 PM UTC