The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Valmy]

It is kind of funny how famous Cruz has gotten after only being in office a few months.  That guy knows publicity.

[merithyn]

Actually, in looking at a sampling of those who identify themselves as Tea Partiers in the House, you get the following. I deliberately avoided the southern states as they tend to be socially conservative in general.

Steve King on abortion:
•Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
•Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
•Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
•Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
•Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
•Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
•Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
•Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
•Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
•Ban abortions for sex selection or race selection. (Dec 2011)
•Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
•Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund. (May 2011)
•Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
•Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
•No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
•Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
•Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)

Steve King on Civil Rights:
•Gay marriage is path to socialism. (Sep 2009)
•Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
•Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
•Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
•Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
•Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
•Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
•Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
•Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
•Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
•Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

Doug Lamborn on Abortion:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment. (Feb 2009)

Doug Lamborn on Civil Rights:
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Ensure disabled access to public pools. (Jan 2013)

Tim Walburg on Abortion:
Strongly pro-life. (Nov 2006)
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
Ban abortions for sex selection or race selection. (Dec 2011)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
No family planning assistance that includes abortion. (Jan 2013)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)

Tim Walburg on Civil Rights:
Supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Nov 2006)
Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)

[derspiess]

I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri.  To you they probably make him a dangerous mofo regardless, but he seems to have prioritized economic/budget issues ahead of social stuff.  And it's worth noting that he apparently supports a soft amnesty re: illegal immigration.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Will the Chinese invade Alaska or just make an end run through the Canal and burn the public buildings in DC?

[merithyn]

I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri.  To you they probably make him a dangerous mofo regardless, but he seems to have prioritized economic/budget issues ahead of social stuff.  And it's worth noting that he apparently supports a soft amnesty re: illegal immigration.

He hasn't prioritized it right now, because we're in the middle of a budget crisis. If he gets elected President, do you think that will magically go away?

The point is that these are not just Libertarians. These are social conservatives who are also fiscally conservatives. And they're not shy about being either. So yes, that terrifies me. 

[derspiess]

President?  Slow down there, hon.

Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

[PDH]

President?  Slow down there, hon.

Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

Rand's hair is way more scary.

[Valmy]

I don't believe any of those are pet issues for Cruz, Meri.

I don't think so either (though he has only been around a very short time, still too early to know for sure).  He is going to feel compelled to take those sorts of stances anyway just to fend off primary challenges.  It does seem like he made some speech about creating a more virtuous Christian nation which was a bit unnecessary (though that might have been Rand Paul).  But it is not like he is different from John Cornyn or any of the mainstream Texas Republicans on those points.

[merithyn]

No, you guys really are whacky.

You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.

Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.

But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.

Are you saying that the Tea Party contingent in the House aren't a bunch of social conservatives who, pretty much as a body, voted against civil rights for homosexuals and abortion rights for women?

That's encroaching on the rights of those they didn't agree with using government. That's not small government.

[merithyn]

President?  Slow down there, hon.

Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

Okay, sweetheart.

But don't sit here and claim that the Tea Party isn't what I think it is, either. They have voted time and again to use government to prevent people from living as they choose. They are not about small government. They have never been about small government.

[Razgovory]

Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".

No.  The Tea party doesn't actually stand for anything except being opposed to Obama and Democrats.  It's not actually an organization but a bunch of them under the common label. 

[Valmy]

No.  The Tea party doesn't actually stand for anything except being opposed to Obama and Democrats.  It's not actually an organization but a bunch of them under the common label. 

Huh.  I thought they did have an organization.

[Berkut]

President?  Slow down there, hon.

Anyway, which costume would terrorize you more for Halloween-- Ted Cruz or Rand Paul?

Okay, sweetheart.

But don't sit here and claim that the Tea Party isn't what I think it is, either. They have voted time and again to use government to prevent people from living as they choose. They are not about small government. They have never been about small government.

They are all about small government.

You might think that means that their values are not always consistent, but that is true for every single politician everywhere who holds any kind of values at all.

All issues are ones of competing interests. I agree with you on most of these social issues, but that doesn't mean I do not perfectly understand how a Tea Party ideologue can be all about small government while at the exact same time wanting to restrict gay marriage.

You don't have to understand this yourself, but you would have a much better understanding of politics if you were more willing to at least make an effort to understand what the "other guy" actually thinks, rather than just assume they are some monsters who do not even make internal sense.

However, that is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as just comparing them to Nazi's of course. Or whatever.

[merithyn]

They are all about small government.

You might think that means that their values are not always consistent, but that is true for every single politician everywhere who holds any kind of values at all.

All issues are ones of competing interests. I agree with you on most of these social issues, but that doesn't mean I do not perfectly understand how a Tea Party ideologue can be all about small government while at the exact same time wanting to restrict gay marriage.

You don't have to understand this yourself, but you would have a much better understanding of politics if you were more willing to at least make an effort to understand what the "other guy" actually thinks, rather than just assume they are some monsters who do not even make internal sense.

However, that is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as just comparing them to Nazi's of course. Or whatever.

Given that I've never compared them to Nazis, I'm not really sure where that emotional dig comes from.

The Tea Partiers aren't monsters, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them being in charge of me or my country. I disagree with ~80% of what they claim to be for, starting with the social issues. But I also disagree with their desire to create some mythical "small government" that doesn't include cutting spending for the military, but shockingly takes away all funding for helping those in need.

But you've decided what I know and don't know, think and don't think, and apparently feel. So, what was that phrase you used? Tilting at windmills?

[grumbler]

Okay, sweetheart. 

I thought calling people with whom you have no emotional relationship "sweetheart" was a Bad Thing.  Or is it only a Bad Thing when guys do it, and women can be dismissive at will?