Wednesday, November 9, 2011

A dose of reality for the Yahoos

There has been so much publicity surrounding the PTR's (formerly GOP's) interminable and seemingly unavoidable nominating circus, that it one forgets that the candidates and issues involved are basically beneath contempt. Yesterday's elections restored a bit of reality. Life goes one, and there are still large numbers of people out there who aren't brain dead.

Mississippi, for example, rejected a truly idiotic chaos-inducing plan to declare fetuses persons from the moment of conception. This is so fraught with unintended -- and intended -- consequences that even Mississippians, right in the heart of the bible-thumping-belt, had more second thoughts than affirmative votes, sending the measure to well-deserved defeat. It is a testament to the Yahoo-ness of the state that the vote was even remotely close. But: A miss is a good as a mile (as they say in Miss.)

Voters in Ohio thoroughly rejected an anti-union bill that had been passed by its Republican governor (Kasich) and legislature.

Maine, which elected a Yahoo governor last big election -- mostly because people who despised him split their vote, so he got a small plurality -- turned on a vote suppression bill that he and the Republican legislature passed. Mainers restored same-day registration, rejecting the phony voter-fraud arguments that had been used to pass it.

Finally, a fairly conservative Appeals Court in D.C., in a 2-1 decision, supported the constitutionality of Obama's health care bill by declaring that the Commerce Clause of the
Consitution gave Congress the right to legislate the "individual mandate." Maybe even Scalia and Thomas will buy their argument, but who knows what will happen with the radically activist Supremes.

Anyway, nothing succeeds like success. I hope these results will tone down the Republican sideshow, but I doubt it. Bring on more Cainonized victims of the Hermster! (That guy really gets around.)


  1. Why did you fail to mention that voters in Ohio also voted down a key feature of ObamaCare, even if it's symbolic?

  2. My thesis was that there were a number of developments that belied the tone of Republican candidates. Sure "ObamaCare" has taken some hits. Most of the attacks on it are without merit. But that vote was beside the point I was making, and doesn't in any way negate it.

    It is clearly absurd to force coverage of pre-existing conditions without an "individual mandate" -- this was Republican orthodoxy not that many years ago. If you asked Ohio voters about coverage for pre-existing conditions, how do you think they'd vote? My guess is upward of 80% would favor it, just as they'd favor keeping college-age dependents on parents' healthcare coverage (as provided by "ObamaCare").