"Broadly speaking, there are two strands of conservative thinking in America right now," Rachel said on the show last night. "There's libertarian conservatism on one side, and then there's authoritarian conservatism on the other side. There's small 'leave me alone' government here, and big, intrusive government over here."
The small-government wing of the Republican Party showed up yesterday, somewhat unexpectedly, when 26 Republican members of Congress voted against extending the Patriot Act.
And at the state level, traditional conservatism showed up in Wyoming last month when a pair of Republican lawmakers, both women, spoke out against an anti-abortion bill that would have required doctors to tell women their fetuses can feel pain and to show them ultrasounds before going ahead with the procedure. "When I go to the doctor, it is the most private thing you can imagine," said State Rep. Lisa Shepperson. "I want myself, I want my husband, and I want my doctor there. And I don't want any government."
State Rep. Sue Wallis told colleagues her own story of ending a pregnancy after a brush with cancer. "[O]ur ability as free moral agents cannot justify these broad strokes," she said. She added, "I just ask you as a human being, as a friend, and as a colleague, not to pass mass judgment on your fellow human beings."
We were struck by their words. And judging from the Twitters, I'd you folks were, too. "I've never had this much respect for a pair of Republicans before," wrote @LadyPaxieAmor. "Sue Wallis and Lisa Shepperson, I salute you."
Leave a Comment:
Hello Rachel and TRMS staff
I'll preface this by saying I'm a Canadian, which means of course that I'm a rabid pinko socialist by Republican standards.
I watched your show last night and I just wanted to share my reaction to the libertarian Republican response to that draconian abortion law in Wyoming. Canada has had legalized abortion for about the same length of time that the U.S. has, and we had all the debate and drama such a serious subject deserves. But in Canada, that culture war has long since ended. There are of course pro-lifers who want abortion eradicated, but it is not something that has been mentioned in serious politics for a long time.
There, I think, one man who is responsible more than any other for that,, and his name was Pierre Elliot Trudeau. In 1967 he was not yet the most popular Prime Minister in Canadian history, he was the Justice Minister of the Liberal party, and he introduced an "Omnibus Bill." This bill called for massive changes to the Canadian Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality and making abortion possible, albeit in limited ways. A reporter asked Trudeau why he crafted this bill and he responded with this: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." That one quote has rung true for us for 40 years, and our policies on abortion, homosexuality and a gamut of other similar issues have all been created in context to what Trudeau said that day.
My point is this: in Canada, a country the Republicans have long derided as having too intrusive a government, we decided a long time ago that the state has no business telling us what consenting adults can and cannot do with their bodies.I only hope that somehow more Americans hear those words and agree with them, so that your government can move past the vicious, partisan politics on these personal issues and get to the business of running the nation.
Thanks for the great work you do every day, all of you work very hard and it comes through in what you produce.
Holly Jessome
A fellow Canadian here, I know that some would say that Trudeau's bringing in martial law during the October crisis was overkill. We have the recent experience of Stephen Harper's creation of "Fortress Toronto" during the G20 last year. Unprecedented security, unprecedented spending on the fortifications and the countless violations of rights both civil and human is a clear demonstration that the sharp right turn Harper took the Progressive Conservative (now just Conservative) Party pushed government in our faces in a mind-boggling way.
We should note as well, that the foundation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) as signed into law was the Bill of Rights in 1960 was by a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker. It is predated by the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights in 1947 by then premier Tommy Douglas. Both Douglas and Diefenbaker were Baptists.
The history of Republicans yields some surprises. In the 1956 US election, large portions of the Republican Party platform look like they was written by a bunch of socialists by "today's" standards. And, Richard Nixon who was a Republican had all sorts of reforms considered socialist by the same standards. He was a Quaker which may account for that.
So, when we talk about Liberals and Conservatives (and liberals and conservatives) they are very different animals than they were a generation ago.
Understanding Libertarian Morality: The psychological roots of an individualist ideology
This will not stem the tide of the push for neo-conservative aims. If you'll notice, the bill was rewritten and reintroduced. They just keep pushing. They are inexhaustible in their persistence to get what they want. I admire these women for their stand, but their pleas will not convince the majority to keep government out of the doctors office, except of course in the case of the dreaded "death panels."
What we hear as arguments may, to the neo-cons, sound like a series of "dog whistles" ("death panels" being one of them): coded messages that have so much more behind them that mere rational argument has no chance of defeating them.
With regard to "dog whistles" being coded messages. What provides the background emotion to the "code" is hours and hours of FOX "news" as well as discussions at evangelical churches and elsewhere by the Republican Noise Machine, to borrow David Brock's title. By the time these issues come to debate no logic can prevail.
i believe smith confuses SoCons (social conservatives) w NeoCons who, as irving krystal said are liberals who got mugged.
I believe you are ALL confusing "conservatives" with right-wing radicals, which is pretty much all we're dealing with anymore... (note: radicals, by definition, are NOT "conservative" at all).
I find it both annoying and absurd; Palin and her ilk demanding government
get out of her kitchen and into our bedrooms.
Geezez bozey that is well said.
Me again :) I have another idea on this, although somewhat unrealistic today. But would we really need this if it were not for the Rapist. How can we reform them, before they act on their own demons. I think this is where the true solution is, and the one we should work towards. Just sharing an idea, and one I would love to work on someday. Thanks for your voice! Its a beautiful one!
Shane, what do you mean, I do not understand?
I think that what Mr. Mason is trying to say is that increasing funding and access to mental health care may help would-be rapists before they do anything stupid. It's a sentiment I agree with. (Mr. Mason, if I'm wrong, please forgive me.)
I would add that addressing income inequality in our society might also help to reduce the number of sexual assaults and rapes - indirectly reducing abortions. If you haven't done so yet, read The Spirit Level.
I think that making the correlation between mental health and rapists it might invite more of a stigma about those with mental illness. I don't have the statistics on hand but there's a prevailing assumption that schizophrenics are highly likely to be violent, when that's simply not true. to say that they're likely to be sexually violent, that will just make things worse for the decent people with mental illnesses who just want to live their lives in peace.
You seem to imply that we only need safe and legal abortions in cases of rape and that if there were no more rape there would be no more need for abortions, but rape is not the only time when abortions are needed. When are they needed? That's up to you if you are a woman and no one else.
Blatant disregard for the rights of others is sociopathy. While
sociopathy is a mental illness, it is a personality disorder and not a delusional
disorder. These people know the difference between right and wrong.
Regarding mental health services for sociopaths, personality disorders
rarely respond to therapy and there are no medications for treatment.
It is far more likely these people end up in prison than on a therapist's
couch.
the Symptoms for identifying (APD) Antisocial personality disorders by the Mayo clinic:
Antisocial personality disorder symptoms may include:
are similar to the traits that are identified with conservatives in this study done in 2003.
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
In WWII the Allies convinced Hitler that the D-Day invasion would be at Calais when the invasion was at Normandy. Lies and subterfuge are permissible in war.
That is why Republicans lie all the time. They know they are lying, it's not like they are making honest mistakes or are too dumb to know. They believe their lies are subterfuges in time of war, war against the United States. Watch Boehner on Sunday on Meet the Press. Will he not be lying? I hope I am wrong, I hope Boehner makes a fool of me. But I predict Boehner will tell outrageous lies with a completely straight face. For example, he will say cutting taxes for the wealthy is a good way to make jobs, "Obamacare" will cost jobs, that Republicans favor "free market" and "entrepreneurship", and regulations cost jobs, that Democrats economic stimulus is a "debt-fueled irresponsible social give-away program".
Maybe we should play a drinking game where we would take a swig every time Boehner lies.
Spekkio (comment #4.2): "I would add that addressing income inequality in our society might also help... indirectly reducing abortions"
Yes. It's one of those pesky "facts" that right-wing radicals prefer to ignore that when the economy is doing better overall (i.e. not just for a lucky privileged few at the top), the number of abortions drops. Thus the "irony" that in "blue" states, and during Democratic administrations, when the economy has been better, there have been FEWER abortions than in "red" states, or during the economic downturns that (purely coincidentally, of course) accompany Rape-Public-CON administrations.
h tt p : // www "dot" latimes "dot" com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-rate-20110111,0,1082034 "dot" story
Indeed. In thatrecently released Guttmacher Institute study
h tt p : // www "dot" guttmacher "dot" org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion "dot" html
economic factors predominate in the reasons cited for abortions:
But, don't waste your breath trying to convince radical right-wingers, their dupes, or anti-choice zealots... facts are irrelevant when you're sure you possess the "truth".
And, Covah (comment #4.7) - drinking games are fun, but I'm pretty sure my liver doesn't have the capacity for that one!
There is a HUGE difference between being "Conservative" and being reactionary. Ask yourselves: what are "Conservatives" conserving? Before the word "environmentalism" existed, I was taught natural CONSERVATION in my public school, forty years ago. Are we conserving capital, giving corporate welfare? Are we conserving human life, engaged in constant war? Are we conserving our children? Be clear on the distinction between "Conservative" and reactionary, and it's easy to pull the sheets off the ku kluxers who carry the torches. And these women made me cry.
Conservatives are conserving the aristocratic system that existed in this country before the liberals overthrew British rule and instituted anti-aristocratic government. That is why they hate the Constitution and everything America stands for. Any lie that gains them power is justified.
"Our rights come from God" refers to the divine right of kings which was expressly denied in the Declaration of Independence. Their obsession with tax cuts for the rich, their disgust at social spending, the ignorance of constitutional language exhibited by highest Republican leaders, their prurient attacks on political opponents, their moral elitist posturing, their embrace of corporate power at the expense of individual freedom, their fixation on military display and wars, their distrust of educated people...
Republicans intend to cause social turmoil by bankrupting this country using Keynesian economics in reverse then seize power in a fascist coup. All evidence points in this direction and I challenge anyone to supply contrary evidence.
Actually conservatives are entirely reactionary. They can only react to situations to make them go away. "The core of political conservatism is the resistance to change", above. Thus they can not govern, they can not move forward, they can only eat dirt like snakes in the dustbin of history.
The correct statement is "There is a HUGE difference between being "Conservative" and being Republican."
Actually, the "correct statement" is "There is a HUGE difference between being 'Conservative' and being a right-wing RADICAL!" Certainly "reactionary" is far too polite a term for them and for what they're trying to do to our country.
"Radical" means "root". A radical solution affects the root, changing society to meet the challenge. That is the only way to move forward. Reactionaries only react to stuff the problem away. They can not progress. Right-wingers and Republicans are reactionaries. They only react to situations as they pop up.
Radical, reactionary, right-wing, and conservative are all general political science terms. "Republican" is something else. Republicans care only about destabilizing the United States so they can repeal that damn Constitution imposed by force of arms centuries ago by those filthy peasant liberals. That makes Republicans technically "counterrevolutionaries".
Living in Texas (which yes, is excruciating, politically) I see this. I see the New-NeoCon Dubya lovin' authoritarian most often. With the sheer numbers of Republicans here the true conservative/libertarian is often lumped in with the other...but I know they're there, because many are my friends, and funny, many of them are women. Most don't even like to talk about politics (a whole 'nother blog), but they certainly are ready to fight for Roe Vs. Wade, and what it represents, line by bit by piece, as necessary. Of this I have no doubt.
because conservative women r married suburbanites who've already had their kids. u can bet tho if lil brittany got preggers, it's off to the clinic!
Rachel, early on in your TV machine career you mentioned how the accolades raining down on you were similar to winning the 'ego lottery.' That statement made me giggle, but not because it was silly. I laughed because I understood exactly what you were saying and admired how you crafted the words to explain it in such a refreshing way.
Just like last night as you illustrated the paradox that is the Republican Party. Rachel, you're ready for prime time, alright, but it should be on NBC.
Though I believe these women did the right thing in taking the positions they did, I am shocked that Rachel would commend someone like Sue Wallis for anything.
She has singlehandedly waged a war to be able to profit from animal suffering, and is widely despised by horse lovers of all political stripes.
Her growing list of political failures continues to underscore her disconnect with the will and morals of the taxpaying public and her total disregard for the true pressing issues which confront voting Americans today.
At least she's consistent though. She's lobbying hard for an equine slaughterhouse, which are notoriously and unacceptable inhumane. The former U.S. equine slaughterhouses (that were closed down) in Illinios and Texas routinely slaughtered pregnant mares, including late-term mares, where the fetuses were thrown in dumpsters.
One can admire the good, and bring attention to it, that one person does, with out admiring everything that one person does. No one is perfect in the first place, are you?
It is kinda like 'positive' feedback.
Ms. Wallis' interest in horse slaughter is quite abhorrent. There are also some indications of ethics problems in the news about her. While I am glad she spoke against anti-choice legislation in Wyoming, I would not recommend her as someone to admire.
Wolfhouse - I'm certainly not perfect, but I don't spend my days lobbying to bring back an arcane industry that subjects horses to barbaricly inhumane conditions so I can personally profit! Nor have I been investigated for ethics violations.
Any Republicans who are willing to be sensible about freedom of choice are an insignificant minority. They will have no real influence on their party. They are not, I repeat, not politically important.
Unfortunatly many are unwilling to be sensible, in thier quest for power.
"unwilling to be sensible" = foam-up then fundraise & pass the plate!...counting...death panels, FEMA camps, gun confiscation, ground zero mosque...it goes on & on. did u see the U of London study about how conservatives react emotionally to data while liberals activate the logic areas of the brain? the weaper of the house...
I smell the same type of hypocrisy usually associated with conservatives. They spend their lives perpetually on a soapbox telling the world what should or shouldn't be allowed in private...unless it's THEIR lives being affected--then it's different.
Its like my wife's friend's husband. He was a retired lawyer, net worth $500,000+, a libertarian, against gov. provided health care. Then he got sick with cancer, he actually applied for MedicAid (for poor people) and complained to me that they refused him. He said that since he was rich he had paid a lot of taxes and therefore should get free health care. Hypocrisy unlimited.
Steve: I'm not surprised. From my observation of libertarians, their concept of "individual liberties" usually means "I'm entitled to what I want!"
The government has no business paying for an elective surgery. Abortion is the same as a facelift, unneeded and unnecessary so unless you are for medicaid paying for cosmetic surgery then the government has no business paying for abortion.
SERIOUSLY- the same as a face lift???????????? Unneeded and unnecessary????
Honestly, I love how the "radicals" don't want anyone to get an abortion yet are unwilling to adopt or pay for welfare for the multitude who will be born into poverty or just unwanted. There are worse things than not being born and one of them is being born into a world of suffering.
Abortion is the same as a facelift? It's like cosmetic surgery? Really? Because, what? That belly bump would make your clothes fit too tight?
I've known three women who had abortions. It wasn't an easy choice for any of them. One was a teen, raped by her stepfather. (Mom threw her out, preferring to believe she'd been knocked up by some boyfriend, by the way. So a homeless teen.) One had a terminal genetic disorder that had a 50% chance of killing the child, and very likely wouldn't have survivied the pregnancy anyway due to the mother's enormous abdominal tumors. The third lived in an airstream camper with her much-older out-of-work husband, a toddler, and a large dog. This third woman felt so guilty about having done it, that she wound up having two more children. (They found a cheap two-bedroom apartment.)
It's not cosmetic surgery, Smilidon. It's a very difficult thing, which we must have the right to do.
The government has No Business BEING in "my business".
Where are the Smaller Government Advocates? Do their beliefs Not go Across the Board for All Government Intrusions upon our personal lives?
It's quite clear that the anti-choice crowd in general enjoys being cruel.
I believe the long term effects of someone not being allowed an abortion are much greater than not being allowed to have a facelift. And in the case of government funded abortions those are only approved in the cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity such as serious health risk to the mother. Abortions are not always elective. Just as "Cosmetic" surgery is not always elective. My cousin was in a serious car accident and his face was shattered by the windshield. The government could have easily said that he could survive just fine with a heavily scarred face half a mouth and no nose but instead they paid for him to have "cosmetic" or reconstructive surgery on his face and allow him to live a much more normal life. Should the government deny this right to the 14 year old girl who is raped by a stranger or even possibly a family member? Should she be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy (which any mother can tell you can be trying in the best of circumstances much less when prefaced by a trauma such as rape) and then the dangerous act of childbirth (women do still die during childbirth, especially young mothers who haven't fully developed) and then deal with the hormonal turmoil that pregnancy can lead to (such as postpartum depression) on top of this the disruption to her life (school, social life) and possibly derailing her future success in life. This forced pregnancy would affect her for the rest of her life. Even if she chose to give the child up for adoption. So no I do not equate abortion with a face lift and to do so is not only to belittle the huge impact it has on a woman to choose to end a pregnancy but also to completely marginalize the huge impact becoming a parent has on someone.
That's a nice inflammatory statement sure to get attention. But if you truly felt that abortions were the same as facelifts (and to an extent I agree - they are both legal routine medical procedures and have no moral element), then you would also have to say that the government has no right to limit abortions or make any law restricting them just as the government doesn't have a right to limit or restrict facelifts.
I'm assuming that Smilidon is male, which means he has no business saying ANYTHING about abortion. Men should not even be allowed to take part in the discussion, because you have NO IDEA what is at stake and NO STAKE in the idea.
crazy: I think that the idea that men have no stake is not really fair. I get what you are saying and I respect your passion...I am just remembering the pain and tears of the father of the baby I aborted when we were both so very too young to have a baby. He was supportive of me and understood the choice was mine and not his. He did know what was at stake and it was part of him.
I called Wyoming today to offer my appreciation and support for both Wallis and Shepperson for their courage and common sense.
I also offered my solution of making Vasectomies Mandatory for Any Unwanted Pregnancies that are a result of unwelcome, non-permissive sperm emissions, in an effort to equalize the currently mandated governance of just Female Reproductive Rights to become a matter of governance for ALL Human Reproductive Rights.....Women must no longer be required to bear the Entire Burden
I am pro-life a Roman Catholic priest and love the Rachel Maddow show. Rachel you are funny smart fact based and a truely good voice in the American scene. I also disagree with your position on abortion. I will send you the therapist bills!!!!
Seriously though I wonder why you never have some of the pro-life people who tend to be progressive like Kristen Day of the Democrats for Life or Senator Bob Casey who was one ofg the introducers to Then Senator Obama and is pro-life? There is a lot of us out there qwho are pro-life are appalled at the killing of Dr Tiller appalled at the Republican platform. I would love to see you have some of those folks. Now I have reaaly only been watching you dince 08 so you may have done this already. If not please consider it. or take pity on those of us who are late comers.
The Catholic Church has done more damage than any institution I can think of. The Catholic Church advocates procreation at the expense of the environment, common sense, ability to provide, but I don't see the Catholic Church adopting or supporting the children who are born into poverty and misery. Shame on the Catholic Church! They are a scourge to humanity!
If you are a "male Catholic priest" you have No Right to even consider what I choose to do with My Ovaries, My Eggs or My Uterus any more than I have a say in your decisions involving How you handle or what you choose to do with your sperm.
Side Note:
Since you are professing your opinion as a priest, Pay Your Fair Share Of Taxes or Get out of Politics!
father mike - u must recognise that anti-abortionists remain utterly compromised re fertility clinics who routinely destroy embyros as private property which is settled law. suppose any unborn children were killed when God flooded the earth? ditto end-of-life geriatric decisions bet families & doctors to withhold critical care & allow death w dignity. also pls explain the churchs' postion on righteous war. complete & utter compromise...
Interesting and all, however I am struggling with the idea that a Roman Catholic priest cannot spell truly??? I think there may be a nun with a ruler in hand in Mike's future.
Believe in no abortion under any circumstances? Fine. Don't get one.
I'd like to respond to the comments First to newsblog A statement like worst instition in the world seems quite extreme. I can point to many good works that the Catholic Church does and has done over the centuries Also as a matter of fact the Catholic Church does adopt the Chidren of unwanted pregnancies andI personally am involed in providing support forwomen with difficult pregnancies ie not enough money to support the child etc. I work through Project Gabriel which is very supportive of poor women who are pregnant.
To AJ not only do I as a Diocesan priest pay taxes because I am counted for tax purposes as a contract employee I pay some more then others pay.
Maggie you are right there is a nun somewhere with a ruler because of my poor spelling
A general note on where both sides begin their argument. Pro-choice begin their argument from the right of women to their own bodies I feel they do this to the detriment of the right of the fetus. Radical pro life people seem to forget the rights of women while protecting the right of the fetus.
I see the fetus as being human so therefore worthy of my protection I also think that the pregnant woman as a human being has right to help in caring for her child or getting it adopted. One of the things that I support is the Pregnant woman's Support Act which provides a comprehensive program for pregnant women in need of help.
I certainly do not suggest that we have solved this problem of what to do with women in financial need who are pregnant but I do think some action has been taken. As pro-choice people would you support bills such as the Prenant Woman's Support Act?
Smilidon, I'm having trouble remembering where plastic surgery actually saved someone's life or health; can you refresh my memory?
Father Mike, of course you're pro-life (or whatever that really is), you're a Catholic Priest. If you were a 14-year-old who'd been raped by her stepdad, maybe you'd think differently.
Those are the most difficult questions I personally have as someone who is pro-life.Others are where the life of the mother is at stake. The one time the Catholic Church allows abortion is in some cases where both mother and child will die if the child is not aborted. The canon law gets pretty thick on when that is allowed and when it is not. To find out more about this look up principle of double effect or principle of lesser evil I personally would prefer a more simple response - what would save the most lives.
The 14 year old rape case is the most difficult.I would be against the abortion . I would be against the abortion because I believe the fetus is a human life and I cannot say that a human life should be lost even with the tragedy that the 14 year old would go through.I say this knowing that that decision would be heart wrenching and difficult if it were a parishoner or a family member. Even if not someone I knew it would be hard for the person making the decision
But now I would like to give you a difficult quandry. In my parish there are two young people that would seem to be good cases for abortion while they were fetuses. One is a Downs Syndrome 19 year old. He is a charming very much loved young man and I would feel lesser by not knowing him. The other is the child of a drug abusing teen. There was concern about fetal alcoholism. This young man does not have fetal alcoholism . He is an Eagle Scout in the process of going to college and is married with a delightful and quite normal infant daughter. Which one of these true cAses should have been aborted?
Why do people have a problem with a doctor telling a woman that the fetus she's about to murder will feel the pain? Why ... because they want to keep their heads in the sand and pretend it's just no big deal and that all she's doing is getting rid of something that's a part of her body and not her child, a living human, an innocent life that has no say in the matter (either really, being created or being murdered). It's so sad that any woman who considers herself a good person can blindly go in and murder her child just because it's inside her and can't speak for itself. And for the record: I am a woman and I am pro life and I am not a Republican nor am I religious. I just see murder of an innocent life as totally unacceptable.
Because it is not based on fact only propaganda.
If you carry a gene that makes your child likely to be born with a disease that will only kill it in a matter of months (or kill both of you while in the womb), it's not so easy to say "no" is it? I'm glad my mom didn't abort me since I turned out fine, but I may very well not have. I'm grateful she took the chance with her own life to keep mine but I would say don't you DARE try to force others to do the same.
Why are folks like you not in the streets in droves making us look like Egypt, protesting against 'collateral damage' and 'out and out' war crimes, to say nothing of those dead of gang violence in our cities?
Those dead in economy based wars of convenience, those civilian dead are folks - human beings - who felt pain, saw it coming, and were already born!!!
If the legislators of Wyoming wanted to end abortions they would stop supporting such mamby pamby laws like the one proposed and get serious. Here is the way you do it. All women of child bearing age would be tested monthly for pregnancy and if the test was positive they must produce a baby or be executed. Also, the father of any aborted baby would also be executed. Also, the doctor performing an abortion would be executed along with any nurses, secretaries, janitors, medical supply salesmen or anyone else who had anything to do with the clinic. If a bank lends money to an abortion clinic then everyone who works at the bank would be executed along with all depositors. And finally, if any relative of a legislator has an abortion then that legislator would also be executed.
Now there, that's a no B. S. law that means business.
The Taliban would be proud.
Priceless.
I agree. Women in Wyoming are tough. Even a tough Wyoming woman faces many obstacles when it comes to their rights and the courts in that state ( family , abuse, etc. issues have been a long struggle for Wyoming women)
so a lot of conservative western women as well as progressive western women come together in a number of areas and are realists like these two.
I would indeed have more respect for the current brand of extremo-conservatism if it wasn't for flagrant hypocrisy regarding government involvement . A lot of these same folks were the ones who called us traitors when we said 'no' to 'big government' intervention in Iraq. they scream for more feds down here at the Mexican border while screaming no feds to manage public lands, no feds for anything else. They want freedom of 'christianity' , but don't recognize anyone's rights to freedom FROM Christianity. they want the government off their backs but at the same time want their religion to dominate our government and intrude in all issues deemed 'moral' by their religion .
i believe that it is the true conservatives and moderated in the Republican party that are going to have to step up to keep their own party from further dragging the country into a real mess.
Rachael, I am a fan of your show, and with that being said, I am shocked that you would heap accolades on Rep. Sue Wallis (or Slaughterhouse Sue as she is known in mustang and burro loving sectors) Miss Wallis recently hosted an event called Summit of the Horse. Sounds nice, doesn't it? In fact, this was a gathering of pro slaughter persons, who will reap huge rewards, if they are able to reopen slaughter houses in WY. She enticed people to sign up for the Summit, by selling raffle tickets for a truck. However, as the time approached for the Summit, she renigged on the truck and asked if she could keep the money anyway.
Millions of horse and burro loving people are waging a battle to save our wild mustangs and burros from being managed into extinction. If you want background on this, please look at George Knapp's reporting. He has been following the wild one's issue for over 20 years. He has a six part segment which should enlighten you. This is the story you should write and speak about. Our public lands which are protected by the presence of our wild horses and burros, are being stripped of them, so that the land can then be handed over to foreign nationals to develop. It is a land theft of our public lands of Biblical proportions. In 1971 when the FRWH&B act was passed, the wild ones were provided 51 million acres of land to be used by them primarily. Now, with the zeroing out of these healthy herds, they are down to 20, million acres, and shrinking quickly. This is your story Rachael.
One vote, on one issue, does not a good legislator make. Miss Wallis' stance on wildlife, and animal welfare are barbaric. If you would like to know what it would be to have a slaughterhouse brought into your town please speak to Paula Bacon who is the ex-mayor of Kaufman TX. She discussed the increased violent crime, the devaluation of property, the stench, and blocked sewage systems. All the violations were never paid, by this foreign owned slaughterhouse, and even though they brought in million in profits, they only paid $4.00 dollars in taxes.
Sue Wallis does not deserve positive space on your show. She has been brought up on ethics charges, and continues to profit from legislation she pushes through the legislature. Rachael, please look into Sue Wallis before you praise her further. It makes it look like you have not done your homework. Love ya, but you are on the wrong side, defending this evil woman.
Very well said Marjorie Farabee. You are a truth teller and Sue Wallis is as vile a human being as there is. Rachel you didn't do your homework or your put Wallis' position on abortion above her vile agenda to start murdering "our" Wild Horses and Burros". Which is it Rachel?
-Paul Hester
Why do we refer to Repubs as conservatives when they are really fascists and i mean that in the truest sense of the word - "adherents of an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism." if you look at this definition closely you will see they really fit this. the dictator here is the party, they want to destroy any dissenting voice and have said so publicly, they want to "cede" all economic control to capitalist power broker who they are in league with in a cabal of industrialists and congressional ruling elite and they divide the country by appealing to the basest fears with attacks against blacks, liberals, Hispanics, gays and who knows who will be next. i am not paranoid - who needs to be with reality like this.
actually fascism is the union of corporations & govt...or how's that ol military-industrial complex going?
Wyoming women , conservatives and progressives , are tough, and come together as realists on many issues. Wyoming can be a tough place . when it comes to the state courts and issues of abuse, family law for example women have had a long tough battle for their rights.
I would have more respect for the current brand of hyper-right wingers if they weren't such hypocrits (sp?) in this area. They branded us as traitors when we argued against "Big Government' intervention in Iraq. they scream for more federal money and tropops at our Mexican border but don't want any federal money or people to manage public lands or provide any other services.
they want freedom for their version of the Christian religion to control government policy, yet do not recognize the rights of those who want freedom FROM that religion. The want the government to be intrusive when it comes to issues they deem 'moral' by their interpretation, yet want to abolish any government outside that narrow definition.
Personal rights be damned, progress be damned, science be damned,society be damned.
It is a pathological approach. i believe that reasonable conservatives, along with moderates in the Republican party need to step up now to take back their party from the irresponsible loudmouths who have grabbed the reins. otherwise they'll just be passengers along with the rest of us, while the extremists drive the buggy over the brink.
All I can say is BRAVO! I have been asking this question about the consevatives and the disconnect between what they say they stand "for" and what they actually try to pass as policy for years and wondering when anyone would talk about it. Keep pressing the Republicans on this because I think it is the single most important way to bring about real honesty in the conversation. Lawmakers like Rand Paul have a very hard time justifying themselves - but until they do, they have no credibility for many americans like me!
All I can say is BRAVO! I have been asking this question about conservatives and the disconnect between what they say they "stand for" and what they actually try to pass as policy for years and wondering when anyone would talk about it. Keep pressing the Republican party on this because I think it is the single most important way to bring about real honesty in the conversation. Lawmakers like Rand Paul have a very hard time justifying themselves - but until they do they have no credibility for many Americans like me.
You seem to imply that we only need safe and legal abortions in cases of rape and that if there were no more rape there would be no more need for abortions, but rape is not the only time when abortions are needed. When are they needed? That's up to you if you are a woman and no one else.
Sorry, meant to post as reply above - can't figure out how to delete my comment here.
Liberals--- Take back the concept of "limited government."
Big government, small government, limited government....
Madison warned us: "An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized." (First Federalist Paper)
According to the Federalist Papers, when the founders spoke of "limited government" they didn't mean "small" or "weak" government.
First of all: the context for their concept of "limited government" was "what government should be chosen and how should it be shaped" to replace a monarchy with almost unlimited powers
In the Federalist Papers, limited government meant a government limited by (i) the checks and balances among the three branches of government and (ii) regular and 'frequent' voting for representatives. (The then argument was whether reps in the house should have 1 year or two year terms.)
The founders didn't mean small or weak - that had been tried with the Articles of Confederation which didn't work.
More at
This analysis is flawed by the error of the two strands of conservatives.The sort reductionist oversimplification with which many so called progressives fool themselves into thinking they know. The significant overlapping factions, Oligarchs,or paleocons,those who have capital (who's privileges are what is to be conserved,weterthe other factions know it or not).Business people who are out to accquire capital,but dont have serious stakes, and don't want Gov't restrictions getting in the way. The military. The christian right,which basically encompasses the traditionally working class whites who as a demographic were democrats until Nixon's "southern strategy" started scooping them up. Not all of these folks are rascist,but the roots of this faction as repubs starts with the disatisfaction of southern white blue collar rednecks who felt displaced by the civil rights legislation of the 60s. They were traditionally democrats,because Lincoln was a Republican.Johnson had the political leverage to force the dixiecrtas to vote for Civil rights legislation,with the longterm result that they,and their constituents ended up joining the republican party. They are not natural allies of theoligarchs,they are traditionally rank and file military,they arent traditionally business owners.It's an odd mix,there's loads of ffiction between them and the other factions,which is why so much energy is put into demagoguery to keep them identifying with the alliance,even though it doesn;t serve their interests