Tag Archives: 2012 elections

No-Tax Pledgers Have Preemptively Broken the Oath of Office

Democrats and liberal candidates, take off the frigging gloves!

When the Republicans running against us for Congress—or the presidency—pledge themselves to Grover Norquist’s “No-Tax” pledge, they have preemptively disqualified themselves from taking the federal oath of office.

That oath states [emphasis added]:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

By binding themselves Norquist’s pledge, Republican (or Democratic or Independent) candidates cannot bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution, especially Article I, Section 8, which states:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”

Nor can they swear that they take their oath freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Fidelity to the Norquist pledge creates—by definition—a mental reservation. Failing to confess it is an evasion.

The point is this: candidates who cannot truthfully take the federal oath, are in effect stating that they have a higher allegiance to a special interest over and above their country and their Constitution. They can’t of course legally be barred from office, but progressives can use this as a political cudgel to keep them out of office.

It’s time stop being hand-wringing, weepy finger pointers and start using muscular patriotism to attack Norquist right-wingers as beholden not to country—but to moneyed interests who pay for their vote. When we do this, we win. When we don’t, we lose.


Waterboarding? If They Like It–Let ‘Em Try It

Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry like waterboarding eh? Then, hell, let ‘em try it on each other! Televise it, and we’ll decide if it’s political torture. Having seen enough of these bozos, we’re experts.


McConnell on Tax Hike: Not In A Downturn, Upturn–Not Even In a No Turn

Republicans made clear on Sunday that higher taxes on the wealthy were not acceptable to them. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said:

It’s a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn …”

(Laughter!) No, no, Mitch-you-stitch! Definitely not in a downturn. And certainly not in an upturn. And never, ever even in a “no turn.”


How Political ‘Framing’ Can Screw With Your Mind

Two blogs ago, I discussed political framing, and how adroitly the Far Right has used it on the USA. Here’s a chilling example of exactly how framing can manipulate minds toward outcomes the framer seeks:

I quote from a chapter I wrote in Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, (Island Press, 2006):

Cognitive psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amous Tversky told a group of subjects to imagine that an unusual disease was expected to kill 600 people. Then they asked the group to choose between medical treatment A, which was expected to save two hundred, and treatment B, which offered a one third probability of saving all 600 and a two thirds probability of saving none of them. By 72 to 28 percent, the subjects preferred treatment A.

A matched group of subjects was provided the same information about the disease and asked to choose between treatment A, under which 400 were expected to die, and treatment B, which offered a one third probability that nobody would die and a two-thirds probability that all 600 would die. Here, treatment B was favored 78 to 22 percent.

In each case, the choice was identical, but one was framed in terms of the number of people who would live and the other by the number who would die. By altering the way in which the choice was framed, the framers spun people’s preferences 180 degrees.

To be fair, framing can be an honest way to express a point. In the hands of ideologues, oligarchs, domestic ayatollahs, and other polecats, it can be sinister as hell, manipulating people to act completely against their best interests.

An election is coming, people. Be prepared!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 302 other followers