Video: Complete Cooch Incoherence at Tea Party Convention

    243
    14
    SHARE



    I was watching this video, and the main thought I had about Ken Cuccinelli wasn’t even so much that he’s a right-wing nutjob, but that he’s just completely incoherent.  For instance, the core of his anti-healthcare-reform argument is that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional because it was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, but the similar “Romneycare” is constitutional because it was put into place by a state government. Huh? Something’s constitutional simply because it’s done geographically “closer to you,” but it’s unconstitutional if it’s done further away from you? So…let’s see, for those of us who live in NOVA, federal health care reform legislation was passed and signed into law just a few miles up the road, while Richmond’s much further away, so by that “reasoning,” the state law would be less constitutional than the federal law? Yeah, uh huh. Whatever.  

    Second, the argument that because the government can do some things, it can do “anything” – and the implication is that “anything” includes all kinds of bad stuff – may be true in theory, but that’s exactly why our Founding Fathers put a system of “checks and balances” in place, including a court system to decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. It’s also why we have elections. But put all that aside for a second and consider; Ken Cuccinelli is railing against government power to do “anything,” yet at the same time is pursuing a government witch hunt against a scientist, Michael Mann, because Cuccinelli, in his official government role as Attorney General, disagrees with the scientist!  If that’s not tyranny, government doing “anything,” I don’t know what is.  So where does that fit into Ken Cuccinelli’s “first principles?” Again, whatever.

    Finally, Cooch correctly declares that Republicans, when they were in power, completely violated everything they purported to believe in. I agree with Cooch completely on that, whether we’re talking government spending, fiscal responsibility, a decidedly non-humble and non-realist form of foreign policy, intrusions on our civil liberties, etc., etc. The question is, why should we trust Republicans now? Is there any reason to think that they have stopped violating their “first principles” now, or would stop violating them if they came back into power?  Of course, there’s absolutely zero evidence of that, and Cooch should say so if he wants to be intellectually honest. But of course he doesn’t, and he isn’t. All of which adds up to, as I said at the outset, complete Cooch incoherence. What else is new?

    • Mike1987

      “…Finally, Cooch correctly declares that Republicans, when they were in power, completely violated everything they purported to believe in. I agree with Cooch completely on that, whether we’re talking government spending, fiscal responsibility, a decidedly non-humble and non-realist form of foreign policy, intrusions on our civil liberties, etc., etc….”

      ==========================

      And his Bagger/Thug party is planning on more of the same. Remember, the majority of baggers are christian “conservatives” who love instituting Federal laws on whole groups of people because Jebus told them so. Their hate fest will be cut short as American’s once elected them in Nov will be disgusted by these crack pots in 2012.

      America is moving forward, slowly with occasional jerks back a foot or two, with racists and ignoramuses screaming, but moving we are.

      There is no place at the table for Cooh and his ilk.

    • blue bronc

      When looking at each teabagger, CH Cooch, Buck, Angle, O’Donnell (first Delaware Witch since 1692), Paul, they have one overriding characteristic that is highly refined and vastly improved on from the Saint Ronnie.

          Lie, Lie and Lie some more.

      Say anything outrageous and say it often.  The more inflammatory the better. Never back down, just lie more by accusing the people pointing out your lie that they are the ones lying.

      Due to whatever brain flaw they have, research is showing R’s have a defect that prevent empathy and allows them to lie without any remorse or guilt.

      Missing from their grey, or is it brindle, matter is any care regarding truth, logic or compassion.  You cannot debate with them as their attack mode prevents discussion or back and forth discussion.

      They have only one consideration, themselves. That is they one consider their body, not that of partner or parents, children or any others. That is why they can throw to the streets gay sons or daughters. Caught engaging in extramarital affairs or gay trysts without any concerns about hurting anyone. Gingrich and Craig are the prominent jerks in those categories.

      They are passionless, except when they feel you are taking advantage of them, which is anytime they create in their mind that situation. Frequently seen when people are trying to help them or society.  

    • Elaine in Roanoke

      Cooch and his wingnut ilk evidently believe that the portions of the Constitution that deal with the federal government’s power to “promote the general welfare” are null and void because Cooch says so. Ex., Preamble: “promote the general welfare,” Article 1, section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes…to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

      The so-called “mandate” for health insurance is simply a tax levied on those who are uninsured in order to compensate the government for their health care that is provided by public entities. Whether the Supreme Court that has been assiduously pulled to the right will see that or not remains to be seen. Of course, if they rule Cooch’s way then they also declare Social Security invalid. That would seal the death of the GOP.

      If Cooch worships the Tenth Amendment so much, he should lobby for a return to the Articles of Confederation…or maybe the constitution of the Confederate States of America. That would fit….

    • GregHabeeb

      between what the Feds can do and what state/local governments can do?  That’s kind of hard to believe.

      There are all kinds of things that are unconstitutional for the feds to do but which are perfectly fine for other levels of government to do.  My city tells me I can’t have a fence higher than 6 feet and can’t have more than 2 dogs.  That is perfectly Constitutional.  If the feds passed a law that said “no fences may be higher than 6 feet and no more than 2 dogs” it would be laughably unconstitutional.

      For the record, I don’t believe for a second that government closer to you is necessarily “better.” It often is but often is not.  I certainly don’t want my city council arranging for a military defense.  However, it is simply indisputable that state/local governments can constitutionally do some things that the feds cannot.

      As for the specific question of healthcare, we could debate all day (without getting anywhere) whether it’s one of those things.  I personally believe the “mandate” is unconstitutional because it is outside the feds’ powers but would be okay at the state level (constitutionally but not as a matter of policy).  You disagree.  The Supremes will ultimately decide.