Moonbats.
This is the correct English word to use to describe people who blow up stupid things out of proportion, ignoring truth to push an ideological agenda.
Take, for example, this Daily Kos article, wherein John McCain made a mistake. According to the poster, his mistake "really is a big one."
What mistake? See if you can spot it:
There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use."
Yes, McCain incorrectly said that eminent domain cannot be used to take private property for public use. On the contrary, as everyone should know, it can ONLY be taken for public use. McCain, quite obviously, meant to say, "private property may not be taken for private use." But he slipped up and said "public use."
Insert wailing and gnashing of teeth.
McCain knows eminent domain far better than the overwhelming majority of whiners at dK complaining about this. His understanding was made clear just a few sentences later, when McCain went into greater detail:
A local government seized the private property of an American citizen. It gave that property away to a private developer. And this power play actually got the constitutional "thumbs-up" from five members of the Supreme Court.
There is no doubt that McCain here is talking about private property for private use. It cannot be more clear that he simply slipped up when he said "public use," which is something everyone does many times a day ... especially politicians on the campaign trail.
Case in point: a prominent Barack Obama supporter, Mayor Doug Wilder of Richmond, Virginia, was on "Face the Nation" on May 4 (PDF transcript), and said this:
One final thing I wanted to say. Evan pointed out that Obama voted for this gimmick, this gas tax. Yes. When he was in the Indiana state legislature, and he is the first admit that he learned from his mistake because it was wrong. That's why he knows that this is a gimmick that can't work.
Astute readers will recognize the obvious fact that Wilder incorrectly stated that Obama was in the Indiana legislature, when, in fact, he was in the Illinois legislature. And we don't even have (as we did with McCain) an example in the same interview of Wilder getting it right. He did not correct himself, nor did anyone else correct him. But obviously, he simply misstated: he is talking about Indiana, with a well-known politician from Indiana, and he just misspoke.
But McCain? Oh, he made a HUGE mistake! He doesn't know the Constitution, or he forgot it because he is old! Even though he correctly stated it just a few seconds later when he went into greater detail!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "reality-based community," my ass.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Email ThisThese guys and gal have been at it for two years now. Gotta give them a little credit for slip-ups.
Posted by: swatter on May 13, 2008 11:25 AMBoth sides are guilty of trying to turn elections into an endless search for the Great Gaffe which will save them from having to win on their candidates' merits.
Posted by: ScottM on May 13, 2008 11:30 AMI was thinking that Obama might have been thinking about some of the provinces in Canada though...
Posted by: BA on May 13, 2008 11:38 AMA more subtle way for this to happen is when a local government takes private land via eminent domain, to provide required infrastructure so that a private developer can obtain permits for building a new subdivision. The new infrastructure is of no value to the public, because no one is currently living on the undeveloped land. It's certainly worth millions to the developer though.
Posted by: Smoley on May 13, 2008 11:43 AMDuffman: yes, this "plays into" the "age" narrative, but that is exactly the problem: this narrative -- that McCain has "lost his bearings" due to his age -- are not backed up by any facts whatsoever. He makes no more mistakes than Obama or Clinton (and indeed, it seems to me, he makes fewer than they do, although this could be chalked up to the fact that his primary race ended months ago).
The "age question" is fundamentally dishonest. Indeed, it is by definition an ad hominem logical fallacy: it doesn't ask us to evaluate McCain's views or abilities in terms of what he says and does, but tries to get us to view those things through a lens of debilitation of age, which doesn't have any grounding in fact.
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2008 11:47 AMI agree that it 'shouldn't' have any grounding in fact...but I believe it will have grounding in the fact of 'electability'. :)
Posted by: Duffman on May 13, 2008 11:51 AMThat was no Gaffe.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 11:58 AMHence, "reality-based community," my ass.
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2008 12:05 PMMcCain's is not even in the same stratosphere.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 12:08 PMSadly the race will never be about the issues, because apparently issues are boring compared to the "gaffe of the day".
Thanks for proving my point Ricky:
Even Dan Quayle has been vindicated by the messiah's brain dead statement in Oregon.
I disagree entirely. The media has attempted to spoon-feed us this narrative.
I watched one of the debates against Hillary, and found Obama to be unpolished, not very witty, and stumbing, almost stammering at certain points. Like most speakers, he has a tell in that he clearly loses his precision and enunciation when asked about complex topics, or topics that he does not agree with but must act like he does in order to garner votes.
I'm not saying that he isn't an accomplished public speaker, but he's no more so than any other politician I've seen in a while. He certainly hasn't set himself apart from the crowd in those situations.
Posted by: Larry (not the other idiot of late) on May 13, 2008 01:33 PMStyle over substance, we've got it. =)
I see you're gradually starting to shill for Obama now, now that Hillary's chances are becoming slimmer by the day.
Posted by: Palouse on May 13, 2008 01:38 PMYeah SURE Duffie.
I have a bridge I want to sell you. Vetted my Arse. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 13, 2008 01:58 PMMcCain is only visiting North Bend and Medina? What happened to the other half of the state, you know the one that votes GOP?
No AGW believers over there. =)
Posted by: Palouse on May 13, 2008 02:07 PMNow the left is whining? Seems they got years worth of jokes at Dan Quayles expense in the famous (but wildly exaggerated Potato(e)episode), but once it bites their candidate, they want to raise the level of discourse....how convenient.
.... there's no crying in politics.
Oh, and Cato, the day you make a "point" is the day I promise to visit all 57 states that Obama claims he went to.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 13, 2008 03:16 PMGuatama Buddha - "A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker."
Posted by: barrackslawyer on May 13, 2008 05:48 PMThis confirms the fact that McCain has a very poor respect for federalism and a poor understanding of the federal constitution. The Kelo decision while disturbing was actual a very soundly based constitutional decision that has led to many (I think over half now) state legislatures passing stricter less easily abused emminent domain laws. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Unfortunately McCain likes the heavy handed control of the federal government instead.
Posted by: Lysander on May 13, 2008 09:15 PM[The judges in the Kelo case] correctly recognized that it was a state/local issue not a federal issue and that the state constitution (Connecticut) allows for eminent domain for private use.
Nope. Connecticut is not allowed to do that.
The Fifth Amendment says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is immunity from takings for private use is, of course, an immunity of citizens of the United States, and does not apply to the States themselves ...
... so it's a good thing that the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
This is not a state issue. It was before the Fourteenth Amendment, but it no longer is. There's no serious debate on this subject, and there is tons of precedent for this.
Even the Supreme Court, in the Kelo decision itself, says you're full of it. You were just completely making up the notion that they ruled it was a state issue: nothing could be more incorrect. In the footnote for the very first paragraph of the decision, the court noted, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that taking WAS for a public use. The ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with state vs. federal.
This confirms the fact that McCain has a very poor respect for federalism and a poor understanding of the federal constitution
Nope. That would be YOU.
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2008 09:36 PMIf you read further in the decision you will see that it is the state that decides what is public use and they (CT) had clear non arbitrary rules that defined it in such a way that giving it to another private entity was consistant with public use. I disagree with the CT law, but the CT law was valid and consistant with the federal consitution. THe judges correctly deferred to the states the definition of public use.
Posted by: Lysander on May 13, 2008 09:52 PMThat is beside the point you made (and wrong anyway). Actually, this DISAGREES with the point you made: you said Connecticut allows "private use." If it is "private use," it is forbidden. It is allowed only because it is "public use."
Further, the state does not get to decide that. That makes as much sense as saying the state gets to decide what is free speech. The state can give you ADDITIONAL rights above what the federal government recognizes, but cannot give you LESS rights. So if the federal courts rule that the federal government cannot take your property for a certain purpose, because of the Fifth Amendment, then no state is allowed to do that, either.
And further, as with your last post, the Supreme Court DOES NOT back you up on this. They take as a matter of fact and precedent that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine whether this is a public use. You may be confused by the part of the opinion where it discusses latitude offered to legislatures (which is not limited to state legislatures). But that does not mean the state gets to decide. This is the key passage:
... it is appropriate for us ... to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
Quite clearly, the Court is deciding whether this is, or is not, a public use. It is not allowing the state to make that decision for itself. Else they would say "because Connecticut says this is a public purpose, it is legal" instead of "because this serves a public purpose, it is legal."
Even further, McCain simply echoed the words of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, and please do not try to convince any of us that they does not have a respect for federalism or have an understanding of the Constitution, because your hole is deep enough already.
the CT law was valid and consistant with the federal consitution
Nope. What you and the liberals on the Court are missing is what O'Connor wrote:
To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Such takings eliminates any serious distinction between public and private, and therefore it is NOT a valid application of the Fifth Amendment. It's a fundamental principle: if an interpretation of a law would nullify the law entirely, then that intepretation is necessarily incorrect, unless, of course, you're going to argue that the law itself is flawed.
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2008 10:27 PMNot worth argueing. We both agree the eminent domain should not be used to give private property to other private entities. I think we are actually even saying similar things in terms of what the court said or should have said but semantically we are not seeing eye to eye. It is not a big deal.
The key however is McCains lack of respect for federalism in general. This is one example (and actually one I disagree with Paul on as well). There are so many other issues where McCain shows a lack of respect for the boundaries of the federal government. I am surprised you do not recognize this.
Posted by: Lysander on May 13, 2008 10:37 PMYou just think the federal government cannot prevent it, even though the Constitution clearly says that the federal government is obligated to do that.
I think we are actually even saying similar things in terms of what the court said or should have said
Nope. Not at all. What you are saying is totally false, and not a mere matter of semantics.
The key however is McCains lack of respect for federalism in general.
No such thing exists.
This is one example
No, it is not, as I already showed. McCain's view is absolutely consistent with the Constitution, and is the federalist position. A federalist does not believe in states' rights against the wishes of the federal government in all cases, but only in cases where the states actually have rights. This is not one of those cases.
There are so many other issues where McCain shows a lack of respect for the boundaries of the federal government.
Except that the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely does -- as everyone on the Supreme Court, and Ron Paul, and John McCain, and every other sentient and semi-sentient life form knows, except for you -- extend the boundaries of the federal government to this area.
So there is no "other issue" where McCain does not respect the boundaries of federal government, since you have not even given ONE issue where he does not respect the boundaries of the federal government.
In fact, it is YOU who does not respect the boundaries of the federal government, by trying to grant to the state power that actually belongs to the federal government.
As usual, you simply have no clue about anything you're talking about.
Oh, I just remembered, I said awhile ago I was done with you. I am going back to being done with you now.
Posted by: pudge on May 13, 2008 10:54 PMIf one wants to be hyper-literal, what the Constitution says is that compensation must be given when property is taken for public use. It does not say anything about taking property for redistribution to others.
To be sure, the reason it doesn't mention such a thing is that the framers considered it so (bleep)ing obvious that such takings would not be legitimate that they saw no need to write it down. Had they written down every single imaginable thing governments needed to be forbidden from doing, they could have drafted a hundred-page constitution and still missed a lot.
Unfortunately, we have judges that believe that if they want something to be a "right", they'll declare it so whether or not it's in the Constitution, but if they don't want something to be a "right" they'll ignore it even if it is. In that context, I would hardly trust judges to recognize what rights are so (bleep)ing obvious that they shouldn't even need mentioning.
Posted by: supercat on May 15, 2008 04:04 PMIf one wants to be hyper-literal, what the Constitution says is that compensation must be given when property is taken for public use. It does not say anything about taking property for redistribution to others.
Well, that was, of course, covered by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. But don't give the liberals any ideas!
I met Michael Bond last Saturday, running for state Supreme Court (his ads are on this site). He said something you don't hear too often: he sees the role of the Court to be primarily protecting people from government, while the current Court acts like it's the other way around.
He has my vote!
Posted by: pudge on May 15, 2008 04:58 PM