I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand how any person with an IQ that exceeds room temperature can actually vote for ANY national GOP figure. Wisconsin is bad enough, but Florida is utterly mind-boggling.
The letter to Iran signed by Senate Republicans, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is a flagrant attempt to derail the negotiations between President Obama and Iran. At the same time, we read of Florida Governor Rick Scott forbidding mention of climate change:
The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.
But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.
DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.
“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’ ” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”
There is no way to sugar-coat this. The first is simple and intentional treason. The other is mind-numbingly stupid. Presumably the voters in Florida like both. Mr. Rubio joins Mr. Walker in being mentioned (along with Rand Paul) as presidential candidates. Are you KIDDING? These bozos have more in common with Lyndon LaRouch or L. Ron Hubbard than any past or present president.
I don’t know anybody who lives in Florida. I don’t know who in Florida votes for these maroons, but there are apparently a LOT of them. If the taxes in Massachusetts help keep those Florida Republicans in Florida, that alone is reason enough to raise our taxes even higher. If we have voters in Massachusetts who choose to to live in Florida rather than spend a few thousand dollars a year more in MA taxes, I say “don’t let the door hit you on your way out”.
Today’s GOP has moved beyond “partisan” and “hyper-partisan” into treasonous, criminally negligent, abusive of civil rights, and most of all terminally STUPID.
Especially when referring only to speech, howevermuch you may disagree with it. Such hyperbolic labeling is among the ways of the Dark Side, in my humble opinion. I try not to take that bait. I won’t insist that the GOP defer to the Royal Presidency any more than I will ask Snowden to be silent, or Occupy to bow down, or you to refrain from “disrespecting” Congress by criticizing it.
This is not “only speech”. Speech, in this context, is standing up on the Senate floor denouncing the deal. This is a deliberate attempt to interfere in the administration’s efforts to make a deal by communicating directly with a foreign government. The senate’s role comes later, if at all, and interfering in this way is illegal, un-American, and dangerous. It would be unthinkable (even for these Republicans) to do this to any president other than President Obama, and they are trying to weaken him every way possible, including by affiliating with Iranian extremists.
…but treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. This letter does not do either of those. Treason would be taking steps to help Iran get the bomb.
n/t
This is intended to scuttle the deal being worked on. If this attempt is successful, there will be no deal. The overwhelmingly likely result of no deal is accelerating Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
As far as I’m concerned, this letter IS a step towards helping Iran get the bomb.
And that’s why I didn’t use the word “treason”.
For farnkoff and christopher, here is the relevant portion of the Logan Act:
I’m not saying that the Obama administration or DOJ will pursue a Logan Act prosecution. My understanding is that violations of the Logan Act are commonly described as “treason” — from Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
It seems to me that if a sitting (Democratic) president called the 1968 scuttling of peace talks with Vietnam “treasonous”, then it is perfectly reasonable to similarly describe this letter.
The Nixon campaign’s successful 1968 interference in LBJ’s attempt to broker a peace accord was treasonous. The GOP’s strikingly similar move today is the same. In my view, it is no accident that the same party did both.
It is the GOP way.
Treason is the only crime defined and limited by the Constitution itself. It was put there to make darn sure it never would include speaking out against the government (before the first amendment was added to make that even more explicit) as was often the case in the European monarchies with which the Framers were familiar.
I’m a passionate defender of First Amendment rights.
Still, as has been observed upthread, speaking out — on the Senate Floor, or from a podium, or any other public forum — is vastly different from issuing a formal Senate communication to the government of a hostile nation in the midst of delicate negotiations involving nuclear disarmament.
I’m ok with prosecution under the Logan Act. I use the word “treason” in its colloquial, rather than legal, sense. I thought I clarified that in my comparison to LBJ’s characterization of the similar interference that arguably added years to the Vietnam war and killed thousands of people.
Maybe it’s not “treason”, in a legal sense. If the result of this is the collapse of the Iran nuclear talks, the acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program, and — God forbid — a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel against Iran, will the distinction matter?
If you agree, as you stated upthread, that explicit action to “help Iran get the bomb” is treasonous, then I think the distinction you draw here is meaningless.
This is the text of the letter, per the NY Times – http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/document-the-letter-senate-republicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html?_r=0
Nixon was an individual. The Senate is a body. Would you pursue 47 individual prosecutions?
And I do not see anything in the letter that is inaccurate. Without Senate advise-and-consent, it is guaranteed only through the end of this Presidency. It doesn’t say it would be ‘torn up’ it merely states that without Senate approval, it cannot be relied upon unless the next administration chooses.
I look at the text of the letter, not the analysis of it, and think it just states an inconvenient truth.
…and so transparently written more for a domestic base than for the country it is supposedly addressed to. They are basically saying to the Iranians, “Don’t bother; we prefer war anyway.”
This is an eye of the beholder thing. Democrats writing this during a GOP administration would be frankly stating facts, bravely defending principle, asserting Constitutional rights. Republicans are traitors for reminding others that there are separation of powers.
…would never happen. There are more ways for there to be something wrong than just asking if the barebones facts are accurate.
Can you imagine?
March 11, 2003
Dear Sadaam: Before the shock and awe get underway, we the undersigned members of the United States Senate want to convey to you…
The Senate did not send the letter; 47 individual Senators not constituting a majority thereof did.
The GOP now controls both the Senate and the House, not to mention the Supreme Court. The positions you cite are broadly popular according to the evidence of the latest elections. I disagree with leaders like Rubio, but he’s malign, not stupid.
I make no assertion that Mr. Rubio is stupid. I also do not dispute your observation that these positions are broadly popular.
I’m sorry, but “stupid” is the most gracious characterization I can find for VOTERS who reward this disgusting nonsense.
.
So long as they stay in Florida, I don’t care what they think of me.
the market on stupid, nationally speaking. They either don’t believe in global warming or can’t admit it. They either don’t believe in evolution or pretend that they aren’t sure about it. They either think Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate or pretend to not know. They embrace the remembrance at Selma (or don’t), but are blind to racism today. They nominated Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate. Marco Rubio tells people at CPAC that Obama doesn’t want to fight ISiS because it would upset Iran.
Stupid? It’s the GOP’s strategy, the GOP platform. Once upon a time, we had the idiots. Then we passed Civil Rights legislation. And the crazies left the Democratic Party and made a home with the Republicans. Even then, we never had a love affair with stupid.
n/m
That letter looks to me more like an act of desperation by the GOP.
I am guessing (and hoping) that the existence of the letter means that the negotiations are occurring successfully. Just as the GOP could not tolerate the idea of an Obama domestic policy success (Obamacare), they simply cannot stand the concept of a major Obama foreign policy success. So, like Obamacare, they are desperately doing absolutely everything they can to stop the Iran negotiations.
I predict that we will see many more bizarre attempts to scuttle an agreement that is being made by all of the members of UN Security Council, plus Germany.
The Globe, Times et cetera are reporting how “rare” and “unusual” it is for a bunch of senators to openly sabotage U.S. diplomacy in this way.
Lazy reporting aside, when is the last time this happened? Not just one or two nut jobs, but party leadership and most members. How far back do we have to go?
I’m thinking at least 100 years, am I wrong?
I’ll be 63 in August, I started paying attention to politics in the early 1960s, and I don’t think anything comparable has happened during the time.
I’ve already cited the Nixon campaign’s 1968 sabotage of the agreement LBJ was trying to reach in Vietnam. There is substantial evidence of CIA and GOP interference in the Iran hostage situation in the 1980 campaign (Carter vs Reagan).
I think the operative word is “unprecedented”.
I also think ALL signatories should be prosecuted under the Logan Act.
…is almost all of the Senate majority party so openly defying the President on something like this. The 1968 and 1980 incidents you cite are horrible in their own ways, but none of those Presidents had to deal with a Congress so hostile to the WH that they were willing to sacrifice the national interest in the process. There’s a reason the term “loyal opposition” took hold and this is just the latest instance during the Obama presidency of the opposition refusing to be loyal.
I think that goes without saying. I just wonder how far back you have to go.
The first Johnson administration? The Federalists?
I’m sure the Brits fulminated against Franklin in Paris during the revolution, but that really was war.
This was in 1984 – http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted-kennedy-secretly-asked-the-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
But it’s not like he would have had the backing of other Senators or anything.
The Federalist and the KGB are two sources I’m not inclined to trust, which ironically appears to be another instance of American conservatives backing a group supposedly our enemy.:(
But, was it wrong?
Assume that President Obama is able to make a treaty with Iran, and it lists out 10 years of goals and steps, none of which the majority of the Senate likes. If a Republican wins the presidency in 2 years, could they rip it up?
I realize that if Iran is following the plan it may be hard politically, but what is to stop them from changing the terms of the deal?
We agree that the letter should never have been sent.
I think that the question you ask, although interesting, belongs in a different thread. I’d like to keep this thread focused on the bizarre behavior of voters who apparently support these unprecedented Senate actions, stupidity, or both.
If it is a treaty, no. But a treaty must be ratified by the Senate, which isn’t happening.
If it is just an informal agreement, then, yes.
These people wrongly believe themselves to be persecuted. You meet them in small towns all across Massachusetts. You meet them all over Florida.
Immigrants are stealing their jobs. Obama wants to take their guns away. Atheists want to take away their religious freedom. Gays want to ruin their marriages. People who oppose wars or don’t want to fund them are disparaging their troops. People who make poor life choices are stealing their tax dollars. Excessive regulation is hurting their employers. (Their adored “job creators”)
It is a very self centered and delusional way of thinking but it is what motivates them to vote for guys like Scott Brown and Charlie Baker. People who only think about themselves are only concerned about things which directly effect them. The hold themselves to be solely responsible for what they have and blame others for what they do not have.
And until we come up with a way to go after these voters, we will struggle in Massachusetts because we are not as “blue” as some would think.
…they are doing a horrible job of voting in their own best interests.
…but they still think that the person on food stamps who buys a Snickers Bar is a greater threat to their freedom and economic security than the Wall Street guy who just siphoned off a few grand from their 401K.
It’s all marketing. It’s the Republicans staying on message with “waste fraud and abuse” and “The American Dream”. Again, it’s a demographic that the Democrats are not reaching out to.
that isn’t necessarily aligned with the Democrats on culture war issues. Democrats have been successful on issues upon which they have chosen to focus. Labor and inequality are not issues upon which they have chosen to focus.
The liberals on here seem to paint all who oppose them with a pretty broad brush. Our beliefs are all accumulations of individual ideas for different circumstances. Do illegal aliens steal jobs and drive down labor costs (and wages), sure. As far as freedom of religion, to me religion is the opiate of the masses and churches (whether it’s Baptists or Jim Jones) should be taxed. Evolution is real.
I must assume some of you progressives do not agree 100% with the Democratic platform, but as long as you have your reasons I wouldn’t call you stupid.
Nope, not all those who vote Republican are bat dung crazy, but it’s clear that any laborer who votes Republican is delusional.
You react to “the liberals on here” while responding to one comment by one participant — and apparently ignoring the diversity of opinion that is present on this thread.
Your assertion that “illegal aliens steal jobs and drive down costs (and wages)” is unsupported by data. I welcome a chance to explore that with you on its own thread (it’s a distraction here). I would not do so if I thought you were stupid. You’ll notice that in both my thread-starter and my comments here, I have explicitly not included that issue in my reasons for calling Florida supporters of Marco Rubio (for the letter) and Rick Scott (for attempting to muzzle scientists) “stupid”.
If you came here and said “Yes, Rick Scott is correct, and Charlie Baker should do the same to scientists in Massachusetts”, then I would call you “stupid”. You haven’t done that. If you said “Marco Rubio did the right thing in signing the letter, and I wish Elizabeth Warren or Ed Markey had done the same”, I would call you either “treasonous”, “stupid”, or both. You haven’t done that, and neither have I.
I encourage you to narrow your own brush while participating in our community. I think we attempt to extend the same courtesy to each other and to you.
Sending the letter was wrong. In my opinion not for the content but for who it was addressed to. If it was sent to the President it would be OK, but we need to present a united front in our foreign relations. As much for our enemies as well as our allies. Iran is our enemy and has been since they attacked our embassy.
We can bicker in-house as much as we want, but the importance of foreign relations is highlighted by the necessity of 2/3 approval from the senate for treaties. While expediency may require some executive decisions if there are long running negotiations they can certainly be delayed long enough to get a better agreement which will satisfy our long term position. These things shouldn’t be looked at as an Obama (or Carter, or Eisenhower) foreign policy success as much as they should be an American success.
In battlefield triage, you don’t waste your time on those so seriously wounded that they’ll die whatever you do.
There is a difference between fear of losing your job to an immigrant, your gun to the feds, your religious freedom to godless atheists, and so on, and:
1. Intentionally derailing an agreement that may slow down the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons
2. Doing or attempting to do serious damage to the ability of ANY US diplomat to conduct ANY diplomacy anywhere (because that is what this letter attempts to do)
3. Muzzling scientists from reporting the facts about, for example, sea level changes in a state nearly surrounded by ocean that depends on its beaches for an enormous part of its identity and revenue.
Voting for either of these two clowns is just plain stupid, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about it. It’s not worth analyzing, and I’m not interested in doing ANYTHING to appeal to these voters. Sorry. If that means we lose elections, than we have a much more fundamental problem.
Even I, as rabidly partisan as I am, am not willing to paint Charlie Baker with the same brush as Rick Scott. I can’t IMAGINE Charlie Baker trying to muzzle MIT scientists reporting on climate change. I don’t think Scott Brown would have signed the letter. I really don’t. I don’t think Marco Rubio would have a PRAYER of being elected to the Senate from Massachusetts.
Oh, and by the way, I do think it’s worth observing that Massachusetts voters turned out Scott Brown after two short years, and replaced him with arguably the most progressive voice in the Senate.
I think we have to admit that there is a segment of American voters who we SHOULD yield to the GOP. Period.
John McCain has already backed off on his signature….The Cowardly Lion couldn’t backpedal faster if he was on crystal meth.
Elias N.
http://www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com
who is up in ’16 and who signed the letter. It’s her first term.
The letter is something old Mel Thomson would have done but this is not your dad’s Granite State.
I’m having a hard time imagining Judd Gregg or Norris Cotton signing this, Bob Smith maybe.
n/m
Who ran for Governor as George Wallace’s party nominee (but did not win tat way).
Who wanted nuclear weapons for the NH National Guard.
Who flew to Johannesburg to praise Apartheid.
Who announced that peaceful antinuke demonstrators were “nothing but a cover for terrorist activity” days before their first big encounter with state troopers and guardsmen.
Yeah, Mel was a real mellow measured moderate. Not. This woulda been just his speed.
You’re right, I stand corrected.
I had forgotten just how crazy he was.
I’d be curious to find out who he talked to who may have suggested that he write it. Let’s see the emails for Cotton and his staff from that last few weeks.
When did he come up with this idea?