Frankly, I'll be glad to be rid of them. All of the whiny "gimmee" states, like Texas and SC, who take more in Federal aid than they give in taxes - and then bitch about their taxes.

Good riddance. And a big 'buh-bye' to them all.

Reality TeeVee, Facebook, and scratch-off lottery tickets are symptoms of a nation that has come to value noise over thought, and instant gratification (via credit cards, etc) over diligence.

Hate to find myself agreeing with Andrew Jackson, but what Wamp and Perry are advocating *is* treason. Odd that the party that fetishizes the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance is also the home of treason.

It should be noted that this secession talk is coming from politicians from states (with the exception of Texas) that receive more financial benefit from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. Let the bastards secede. See how long it takes the tea partiers to realize that without federal programs their states would quickly be bankrupt and faced with the choice of rejoining the union or seeing their states sink into anarchy.
When the tea party crowd is faced with the reality that their medicare and social security are programs that come from that evil group in D.C. they might decide that being part of the union is much better than being part of the peanut gallery; if not, good riddance.

Technically it appears to be sedition rather than treason as defined by the Constitution.
I get that the corporate media considers it good political theater, but at some point you would expect them to notice what is actually being said.

The genius of Movement Conservatism is to take any value and make its opposite equally salient. Sedition is treason if it comes from the left but tradition if it comes from the right. Affirmative action is bad if it helps minorities but justifiable if it helps elitists like George W Bush. In effect, nothing means anything except insofar as it advances tribal identity and cohesion. This is why politics itself has been superseded. There's nothing to negotiate. Everything can be understood as a struggle that either helps or hinders Team America (white, Christian, heterosexual "haves"). Newt Gingrich was the guy who crystallized this tectonic shift in American politics. War mobilizes; politics bores.

Ok. So, outside of parts of about 8 and all of about 4 states, what audience does this resonant with? I mean, come on. Is this guy serious? It seems to me that a generic democratic ad could run 20 secs. of this nonsense, with the sotto voice at the end saying - "you can choose: vot for rep. Dem, or ... turn the country over to this .."

Perhaps related - good article in NYTimes today about 14th amendment crap, which points out that all this noise might help some R's in 2010 or 2012, but over the long haul, they sure are laying the goundwork for becoming a focused party of bigots, nativists, and stooges...

I agree with Zandru and others who say that we should give the patriotic citizens of Texas, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, whichever, the option to vote to secede from the United States. Let the Republicans stop hinting and threatening and grandstanding for the media; let them put their proposal on a ballot and let citizens vote to support the United States of America or support Republicans.

And if a simple majority votes yes, then let them go. Last time we could justify the war to preserve the Union because we wanted to eliminate the horror of slavery. That was an excellent reason. But this time?? Those ignorant, superstitious bigots have dragged the US down, economically, socially, internationally because they actively resist being part of the solutions to the problems that we face. Let them go if they want.

As long as we make it clear that if a state decides to go solo, the USA military is not required to defend them if they are invaded by a foreign nation. And supporting the health and welfare of their old people? Not our problem either. Their huddled masses, yearning to breathe free? They will be welcome, but Texans or Arizonans who sneak across the border without the proper paperwork will be deported if caught.

But put it to the test. Stop the whining and the posturing, make it clear what Republicans actually stand for.

Every Democratic candidate should be asking his GOP opponent about secession and where they stand on the increasingly frequent references to it by GOP candidates. It should be raised every single day, along with the other outlandish things the Angles and Pauls are saying.

Any candidate that doesn't do so should be challenged on their not doing so.

I'm thinking the voters are not going to embrace people who waffle about sundering the union.

as a staunch liberal/progressive I really like the idea of secession - can't stand what today's violently insane republicans/conservatives have done to the country, and would enthusiastically give up large chunks of the US territory to be rid of their insanity, including all of the south (except maybe Florida, but most likely Florida too), Texas, Arizona, Tennessee, Idaho, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and most definitely Oklahoma. Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia are toss ups.

There is no reconciliation, compromise, and even rational discussion possible with today's ignorant, violent republican/conservatives. They deserve each other, we don't deserve them.

Let each state pick which nation they want to be part of; give a 2 year amnesty and subsidy for all those wanting to switch nations, after which republicans would be free to create their feudal, authoritarian, religious fundamentalist, despotic cesspool. Liberal/progressives would be free of the indecent cancer that has been destroying what it means to be American since reagan.

I suggest that we call these childish antics "tenther tantrums."

I suppose it's churlish to point out that the reason the Founders added the Tenth Amendment it was because they viewed the state legislatures as the first guarantor of the rights of the individual. (Granted, they had rather a limited view of which individuals merited that protection.) Which is one of the reasons the Ninth Amendment - which no one ever talks about - is ahead of the Tenth.

@Gak speaks for me.

June and gak. You are a McClellan Democrat. You need pack and move to LiechtensteIn. Or Canada-- like some other McClellan Democrats almost 150 years ago. Today. The rest of us Americans will stay and fight to win.

The analogy is hardly perfect (none are), but today leadership conundrum is almost the reverse of the Lincoln/McClellan confrontation when Lincoln considered writing McClellan: If you are not going to use the [Army of the Potomac], may I borrow it for a while? Many good and decent Progressives now might fantasize that someone like Dean or Franken (with all their flaws) would say : “Barack, if your not going to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency, may I borrow it for a while?”

What really frightens me is the hate that the republicans keep stirring, whether is is against the Mosque in New York or the gay marriage thing, the president, latinos, they remind me of how Hitler came to power, he hated jews, blacks, gypsies, anyone he saw as different. We all know how that ended.

Of course if they did go, it would significantly raise the overall life expectancy in the US... all of those have life expectancies of just over 74 years significantly below Cuba's
78.3, South Korea's 78.6, or France's 80+ years.

It's obscene that these Southern States denounce health care for all and have disgracefully low life expectancies.

It's really too bad the Dems did not start attacking back when the republicans attacked them. I mean really... Didn't they learn anything from Clinton in 92? When he spent tons of money bashing Bob Dole that spring? And Dole just did nothing?

Come on guys where are the

But nullification, like secession, has been tried before, with poor result.

*Apologies for the redundancy.

Technically it appears to be sedition rather than treason as defined by the Constitution.
I get that the corporate media considers it good political theater, but at some point you would expect them to notice what is actually being said.
Posted by: thebewilderness on August 8, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Yes, sane people would expect them to notice what is being said (and correctly assert that Perry, Wamp and the rest of these gargoyles are very much guilty of sedition) but in fact, to paraphrase the old saying, their job depends on them not noticing. The corporate media's sole preoccupation is essentially selling advertising space, with enough salacious stories thrown in to guarantee a few more viewers or page clicks than the competition. Such things as "responsibility" and "the good of the country" are quaint notions that might cut into profits, so they're discarded.

"The corporate media's sole preoccupation is essentially selling advertising space..."

Of course you're right in that, but I think that's corporate media's short-term, daily-focus preoccupation. Their mid- and long-term strategic goal is on display every day: to support the political party that will guarantee them the most favorable tax and regulatory policies possible. They know that's the Republican Party, and that's why Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, WaPo, National Review, Weekly Standard, and all of the myriad other right-wing "news" organizations across the country receive such prominent roles in the media.

keep in mind, Thomas Jefferson wanted the nation to be called the "united States of America" - small "u". It was specifically intended in his, and the minds of many of the founders that States prevail over the federation. If a state wants to leave - why not? Put them on a 40 year plan to pay back the national infrastructure in their territory, stop defending them, and let them go their despotic way.

A nation is nothing more than the people within its territory identifying with it. If the majority in a recognized territory no longer identify with the nation, they cease to be its citizens even if not recognized as such by law.

I really don't understand the hand-wringing over wingnuts leaving the union - good G-D riddens. And keep in mind they have been a huge destructive force since reagan. The US and the world would be an unimaginably better place now if republicans had not dominated the national dialogue and subverted every American Ideal with their racism, their feudalism, their violence, their inanity, and their indecency for 30 years running.

gak: I really don't understand the hand-wringing over wingnuts leaving the union - good G-D riddens.

I think my cracker neighbor may have a "Love It or Leave It" t-shirt left over from his days of hating the hippies. Maybe he'll let you borrow it now that it's apparently time for "progressives" to do the hating.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

gak. You want to take us back to 1810? Perry only wants to take us back to 1861. A bit of relevant history you might read sometime -- on your way to Nirvana in Liechtenstein??

Jefferson would have called us--- as did everyone before 1865--- these United States of America.

Then two things happened. One was a civil war won by the North (to your chagrin?) to save the Union. The other was a less-than-500-word speech by this twit called Lincoln at an obscure patch of Pennsylvania farmland called Gettysburg. With amazing verbal jujitsu, Old Abe reconciled the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution in such a manner that your average gak joe confuses verbiage in one with the other.

The result of these two interrelated events is the Americans and the world refer to us as "The United States of America". I, and I hope most others, will not give up what more than 300,000 died to save because a few loudmouths scare sunshine patriots. There is no way that the radical right should be given a lock on what is called patriotic. I will go to any length to protect their right- and yours-- to mouth your un-American sentiments. As would Thomas Jefferson whose writings and political philosophy you seriously misunderstand.

The big consistency trouble for Tenthers etc. is that if one really follows the US Constitution, that should mean following it's prescriptions for how to deal with dissatisfaction with whether government is following it! If COTUS said this or that resistance etc. could be followed, the 10thers could appeal to that. But COTUS does not AFAIK offer remedies other than implying SCOTUS will judge (even that is not clearly given in COTUS AFAICT and righties often complain even about their doing that!) Basically, Framers just expect people to follow COTUS and left no clear directions on what to do about those who don't - true?

In any case, really following the Constitution wouldn't even allow for Lewis and Clark (what provision for "exploration" ?), NASA, the Smithsonian, lots of things the G does.

Lincoln got it right on abolition, but was wrong on the forced union part of the civil war - big mistake forcing the shitheads to be part of "the union".

Its not too late to correct the union part. No need at all for the right to be forced to continue working on a more perfect disunion. Give 'em their own land and let them work their social Darwinism, feudalism, lies, unrealty and indecency on themselves.

"The corporate media's sole preoccupation is essentially selling advertising space..."

Of course you're right in that, but I think that's corporate media's short-term.

actually that's not correct. Clearly the plutocrats occupying the board rooms of corporate media conglomerates have a republican/conservative agenda to promote. But that is of no consequence because as long as it results in air time to large audiences, advertisers could give a shit about programming content.

gak. Even if your anti-American, Anti-Union thesis is granted, there are few states that are impossibly right wing. Utah and??
Perhaps MS and AL. Certainly NOT AR, LA, FL, TN, VA, TX. Idaho is a much tougher nut for Progressives to crack than TX. Many of these and other the states of the old Confederacy are decidedly up for grabs-- and would have been more so if Obama and other naive Blue Dog twits, especially in the Senate, hadn't been in charge in DC. You're woking overtime to fit the stereotypical image of a McClellan-type surrender-monkey.

Frankly, I'll be glad to be rid of them. All of the whiny "gimmee" states, like Texas and SC, who take more in Federal aid than they give in taxes - and then bitch about their taxes.

Good riddance. And a big 'buh-bye' to them all.
Posted by: zandru on August 8, 2010 at 11:25 AM
For the record zandru, while I consider Texas to be the Beta Version of hell, Texas sends more money to the federal government than it takes in. Get your facts right.

Anyhow, what I am wondering is what is the end game? Say the challenge in court loses, but SC still refuses to implement the law. What happens? Does Obama deputize the national guard and order them to remove the government? What happens?

they're claiming that states can merely ignore any federal law they don't like.

In other words, any Federal law that doesn't bring money to the state.

Funny how they're not at all squeamish about filthy gubbermint funds for their sections of interstate roads, Medicaid matching funds, disaster relief ...

no need to debate which wingnut states go - put it to a vote. Let all the crazies vote themselves out of the union. Their insane Congresspersons go with them, along with scalia, roberts, thomas, and alito.

A fresh start, free of the vile vermin destroying everything decent about America - free to move America forward based on American ideals of equality, opportunity, and community.

No doubt the republican/conservative vermin will be happier too - at least at first. But I'll be first in line with the popcorn when they figure out they have no one to turn their vileness on except themselves.

Which ever country gets Mississippi & Alabama, I want to be in the other one.

Sometimes I just get so sick and tried of the republicans that I wish that the North had let the South go. We would be so much better off. They corrupt our politics with their lies, racism and their hatred for the poor.

"...That's why it's more acceptable to talk about secession's cousin, nullification. Calling themselves "Tenthers" (for the 10th Amendment, which gives states powers not assigned to the feds) they're claiming that states can merely ignore any federal law they don't like. [...] "

If memory serves, isn't the 10th worded in such a way that it's more like if it's an issue that's not expressly spelled out by the constitution, then the states can determine it. That's not quite the same thing as having the option to just ignore any federal law they choose.

"One unfortunate fact that all you arm chair Napoleons on the left seem not to comprehend is that the vast majority of military volunteers (and virtually all of the special forces) come from the so called "red neck" states. The "crackers" you so proudly despise are the men who stand watch on the frontier while you slumber in your beds, and will be the ones coming home to settle this mess. Good luck with your foreign mercenaries.
Posted by: WW"

Um, I live in the state that has the highest number of military service people and veterans, and this is not a red state!

Endorsing secession is hardly the same thing as endorsing a second Civil War. Judging by some of the comments on this thread, a lot of blue staters would be happy to see at least some of the red states go.

Secession by mutual agreement is presumably constitutional, although nothing explicit is said about it in the Constitution.

Reagan started this ball rolling with his hatred of the federal govt. ("The government IS the problem!" -- a self-fulfilling prophesy heeded by every Republican in office since that time, and reaching critical mass (I'd hoped, but now I'm not so sure) under the Bush II years, especially the first six where the Republicans had free run to loot & destroy at will.)

Every Republican I can think of since 1980 has brayed about tax reductions for the very rich, and about a "strong defense." You know how pundits go on & on about Obama's redistribution of wealth? Well, it did happen, but under Bush II. & the pundits didn't mind when the money was being filtered upwards. As far as a strong defense goes, we started a war of choice in Iraq which has destabilized the region & killed hundreds of thousands of people & so very likely radicalized millions more who will always hate us. And we've been unable to "win." We have also been unable to "win" against a third world tribal nation mired in immense poverty & backward notions. How this translates into a "strong defense" is beyond my comprehension. However, I do know that bankrupting the country while paying out obscene amounts of money to fat cat military contractors is not the equivalent of a "strong defense."

In any case though, the ultimate end game here is the destruction of Democracy under the guise of ersatz patriotism. We're a nation with a deeply flawed & terribly expensive "defense" policy, we have no energy policy to speak of, and what passes for one is so drastically wrong that it beggars belief. We've transferred our power from the individual voter to large corporations (foreign & domestic). And we've reached the point where, after 30 solid years of mismanagement at the federal level, we're facing "tough choices" all of which will hurt the little guy and benefit those who've grown fat at the trough already.

Mission accomplished.