Why Does Mitch McConnell Hate America?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a problem with the constitution and democracy.

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.

We’ve tried elections, and they just haven’t given us the results we desire! Maybe we should try something else. Perhaps a dictatorship?

We’ve tried negotiations, and taking the entire world economy hostage just doesn’t seem to be working.

And that pesky constitution is always getting in the way of things. We need to change that too.

Question: Will the Tea Party, along with all of the so-called “strict constitutionalists,” have anything to say to McConnell for expressing his disappointment with both the constitution and the democratic process?

Of course not.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Wingnuts and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • incredulous72

    “If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order.”

    Uh, I’m confused about something.
    Isn’t he one of those politicians? Therefore, isn’t he admitting he can’t do his job?

    • JMAshby

      He’s been there for decades, too.

    • Zen Diesel

      Maybe he smoked too much of that funny Kentucky grass in his youth!!!

  • Zen Diesel

    Sigh, I throw up in my mouth every time that Turtlehead get’s on TeeVee with one of his signature bald face lies. I guess elections only work when wingnut Republicans win.

  • kimroc1

    This is going from dumb to dumber!! If the people of his state vote him back into office, they deserve him!!

    • JMAshby

      He is continuously re-elected because very few people here actually vote, and he is almost never challenged.

      With the way things are going, he may actually face a Tea Party challenger in a primary.

      • incredulous72

        Good god, Ashby. Are you the only sign of intelligent life living in that state?

        • JMAshby

          No. City dwellers usually vote Democratic actually. President Obama won both Louisville and Lexington in 2008. Jack Conway also won both large cities in 2010 over Rand Paul, but the rural population of Kentucky is larger than the city population and the bumpkins are solid Red.

          • incredulous72

            The bumpkins are solid red and solidly daft.

  • Cary

    Amending the constitution involves quite a bit of democracy. The rules for it are… in the constitution. You might want to familiarize yourself with the process before claiming advocating it means circumventing democracy and the constitution.

    That aside, it’ll never happen any time soon. First of all, the process of amending the constitution is not a quick one. Second, forcing the gov’t to never run a deficit is quite restrictive, as various states with balanced budget requirements are now discovering.

    I certainly think we need to get the deficit and debt under control, but this sort of straight-jacket is not the way to go.

    Finally, let’s spell on thing out: the GOP does not mind running a deficit. One has only to look at the Reagan and Bush II administrations to see that. They do hate entitlements though, and the game of chicken over the debt ceiling and bluster about amending the constitution is only a means to an end – ending or at least severely diminishing entitlements.

    • incredulous72

      They hate entitlements for the middle class and the poor.

      They are all for entitlements for the rich.

      • mrbrink

        “They are all for entitlements for the rich.”

        That’s exactly what a balanced budget amendment would be.

        Great point.

    • mrbrink

      And one only has to look at Bill Clinton to determine that a balanced budget amendment subverts reality and common sense.

      This is just ‘starve the beast’ as the Law of The Land– law that would greatly undermine the basic written role of government.

      This is just like Republicans.

      Altering the constitution– the Founding Fathers’ legacy! — abusing it, attacking it for its primary function– not to expand rights, but to take them away as usual. They’re doing the dirty work of multinational corporations and billionaires, here.

      They’re cutting out the heart of government with this scheme.

      But the next time they hold it up while quoting the Declaration of Independence, you can go ahead and laugh in their ugly puke-faces.

      How about an amendment establishing an end to corporate person hood?

    • mrbrink

      “You might want to familiarize yourself with the process before claiming advocating it means circumventing democracy and the constitution.”

      It’s McConnell and the Republican party complaining about Democracy not seeing things their way. I’ll say that again. He’s complaining about democracy not seeing it their way. And the states with wingnut governors are already subverting democracy to maintain their hold on power. For the GOP– it’s the voters who are undermining their agenda and democracy– not stunts like the voter ID laws(which are unconstitutional), or the crap they’re pulling in Wisconsin.

      McConnell: “The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked.”

      And so he’s also attacking the constitution because the 10th amendment establishes respect to the power of the federal government, which includes Article 1 Section 8.

      Which is weird, because Republicans are always using the 10th to tell the government they’re not allowed to expand rights, and if they’ve ever read it, they would know the right to tax and spend is clearly established in Article 1 sec. 8.

  • D_C_Wilson

    A Constitutional amendment needs 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it. A balanced budget amendment would eventually mean that the federal money spigot that red states depend on to balance their budgets would be turned off. Therefore, there is zero chance of one ever getting ratified, mainly because of the same people who claim to want it.

  • holyreality

    I prefer dictatorship, so long as I’m the dictator.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

    Desiring to amend the constitution in no way belittles the document. The document itself provides for it’s own amendment.

    • incredulous72

      It’s not the ‘act’ of amending the Constitution.
      It’s the republicans’ goal for amending the Constitution that belittles the document.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1655290390 Steven Skelton

        The constitution has been amended 27 times. Was the document belittled all 27?

        • incredulous72

          I think you should re-read my statement, think about it for 5 minutes and then answer your own question.

        • mrbrink

          And if you look at those amendments, with the exception of the 18th(which was subsequently repealed), they have expanded rights– not taken them away.

          And if you’re a fan of the 10th amendment, a balanced budget amendment attacks and violates the 10th amendment– which calls into question the motives and hypocrisy of conservative wing nuts everywhere now demanding we balance the budget because 3 republican presidents wracked up over 10 trillion in debt while we’re mired in two wars exacerbated by their lock step lies and ineptitude.

          But you can’t appeal to the tenth amendment when it suits you and override it when it doesn’t…unless you’re a conservatard.

          • incredulous72

            The 18th Amendment; the most ridiculous capitulation to quell the religious right this country has ever seen.

    • mrbrink

      That’s right.

      It’s “a living document.”

      Try explaining “living document” to “Originalists.”

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Exactly, which is what most conservatives claim to be. Ironically they’re originalists until they don’t get their way and then they’re all about amending it.

      • muselet

        This, the first of an excellent (and ongoing) series of articles on the constitution, deals with “originalism” and reality.

        –alopecia

  • http://twitter.com/bphoon Brian C

    I think it’s hideously ironic when the GOP–so-called “strict constructionists”–insist the Constitution be followed to the letter out of one side of their mouth while insisting it be amended to accommodate their failed ideology out of the other.

    Either you think the Constitution is fixed in time and should be followed “as the Founders wrote it” or you think it’s a living document that should be interpreted through the filter of changing times and a changing society and amended as necessary to accommodate new attitudes and ways of living. You can’t have it both ways.

    Seems the GOP believes the Constitution should be followed strictly as written unless it contradicts their ideology. Then, and only then, should it be amended, I guess.

    Come to think of it, if we follow Section 4 of the 14th Amendment strictly as written then President Obama shouldn’t be consulting Congress on the debt limit at all…