RSS Feed Menu
Talking Points Memo has identified a House Rep. who believes that the new healthcare law may lead to the secession of some states:
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is running in a heated three-way Republican primary for governor of Tennessee, has a dire warning about the new health care reform law: If a new Congress and president aren’t elected in order to repeal the bill, states might just have to secede.
“I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” said Wamp, who has also promised to refuse to implement the law at the state level if he is elected, in an interview with the Hotline.
Wamp also praised Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) — who has also floated the idea of secession — for leading the fight against the health care bill. “Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level,” said Wamp.
Click here to read more.
bamboozer // Jul 23, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Oh please, oh please keep talking like that, people love it. At least those who don tinfoil hats and bay at the moon.
pampl // Jul 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Democrats love it as well. No easier way to get elected than to run against a lunatic
andydp // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Since there’s a move afoot to emphasize the Constitutionality of everything; the Gentleman from Tennessee might want to look at this little part:
US Con. Art. I., s. 8., c. 15) reads in part:
“Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.”
Oh yes…Didn’t he also take an oath to “protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic ? Just sayin…
busboy33 // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:04 pm
TPM’s also following the story of Tom Tancredo calling for Obama to be impeached because he is more dangerous than Al Quaida.
I’m expecting the run-up to the mid-terms to keep getting sillier and sillier, as candidates try to out-whacko each other.
Watusie // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I saw a bumpersticker last year that said “So long, Texas – don’t let Oklahoma hit you on the ass on your way out!”
westony // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Bye, Bye!!
rbottoms // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I finally convinced these jackasses are making David Frum physically ill. Since the level of crazy on the Right hasn’t come close to Peak Lunatic he better invest in a Hefty sized vomit bag.
Not that am pretending to hate this at all.
If Republicans weren’t trying to outdo each other in what piece of insanity they can perform for the cameras the GOP have locked in a landslide months ago.
Slide // Jul 23, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Why do Republicans and the right hate America so much. Such a lack of patriotism is disturbing. Bordering on treason I would say.
busboy33 // Jul 23, 2010 at 10:45 pm
@Slide:
Don’t be silly. The Founding Fathers would have had no problem with it.
After all, if they DID have a problem with it, they surely would have put something about it in the Constitution. Maybe called it “Sedition” or something.
See? Silliness.
baw1064 // Jul 23, 2010 at 10:49 pm
How did that secessiony nullificationy thing work out for ya the last time around?
I’m sure if Rep. Wamp fancies himself as a latter-day Jefferson Davis, we can probably find a latter-day William Tecumseh Sherman.
Stefano // Jul 24, 2010 at 1:06 am
I can see the Dem’s add: “The GOP want to break up America, literally! Republicans from Texas to Tennessee no longer believe in ‘a more perfect union’ and would rather tear America apart.” Can these candidate actually offer an real policy solutions instead of this BS?
jorae // Jul 24, 2010 at 5:53 am
We can only pray they will be better at it this time. I’m afraid though, talking like this might hurt his changes of winning. He should keep his thoughts to himself, win and then move decisively. My prayers will be answered.
Hate America…or just hate the poor who cannot afford Health Care in America 2010? Not one European country has ever tried to remove their health care program and they all have Constitutions similar to ours. It is the same mentality as Breitbart that looks down on a certain class of citizen. He would prefer to destroy the entire thing vs. giving one cent towards helping the poor. How do you convince these types that Health Care is not a privilege, but a right for every citizen, and that every cent that goes into the kitty cannot be personally distributed with this attitude against his poorer fellow citizens (who are only poor since someone did not pay them a living wage…dah)
dante // Jul 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
From http://www.taxfoundation.org
Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Tennessee citizens received approximately $1.27 in the way of federal spending.
My guess is that independence wouldn’t last very long, probably about as long as it took to see their taxes double and their farm subsidies dry up.
forkboy1965 // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Dear Wamp & Perry (and much of the far-right GOP):
America – love it or leave it.
XOXO
TerryF98 // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm
He loves America so very much he want to leave it. And they accuse Liberals of being un American
Rokker // Jul 24, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Every time the GOP loses an election to the Dems they never accept the ‘will of the people’. Every law or policy passed by the Dems is now unconstitutional and un-American in their ‘patriotic’ view.
exguru // Jul 24, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I don’t think he will have to take Tennessee out of the union. The entire U.S. is ALREADY fed up with Obamacare, so it will leave us instead of our having to leave it.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 24, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Obviously it will never happen, and I agree this rhetoric is dumb, but just to pose a hypothetical for a moment — why, exactly, is secession such as a bat shit crazy idea?
Let’s assume it could be done peacefully, of course, with no warfare or bloodshed.
It is clear there is a massive, massive cultural and political divide this country, probably a permanent and irreconcilable divide, so why not?
It would put an immediate end to all this horrible acrimony over our conflicting visions of the country; you guys could do what you want, and we could do what we want — no more getting in each others’ way.
Problem solved.
I propose the rural South and rural West for us, and the rest of the country for you.
It’s a definite win for you guys because you get more territory and, most importantly I think from your perspective, you will finally be rid of us once and for all.
Just think of the upside; no more ass backwards, Bible-thumping, ignorant, benighted teabaggers to deal with.
So hypothetically, the downside to peaceful secession is what exactly?
jorae // Jul 24, 2010 at 7:47 pm
I honestly don’t see it as a problem, but an answer to a problem. It has to be the South that would make the first move and I feel confident they will hear a round of applause from the North.
baw1064 // Jul 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm
DSP,
I’ll back off my earlier snarky post (which was more directed at politicians doing stupid grandstanding tricks) and share some thoughts.
Basically, the US is more than the sum of its 50 constituent states. It’s hard to imagine, for instance, that had the Confederate states managed to achieve independence, that either the U.S. or the C.S. could have played the role in world affairs that reunited U.S. did. How would WW2 or the cold war have gone?
If you broke up the country based on the conventional wisdom of red and blue states, both parts end up being very problematic, geographically. Bluestateia consists of two or three discontiguous parts, while Redstateia has no Pacific coast (except for Alaska, which isn’t accessible by land or sea from the rest of the country).
I don’t think it’s so much that there is a cultural difference between different parts of the country. It’s that there is the cultural difference, and people seem to be fixated on perpetuating the culture war. As an independent with moderate libertarian tendencies, this strikes me as absolutely insane. I don’t care if someone in some other part of the country has different views than me, the country is, I’m sure, big enough for both of us.
It’s worthwhile to look at Chinese history, which consists of alternating periods on unification and breakdown into regionalism. I’m not sure the U.S. really wants to follow that model.
drdredel // Jul 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm
it’s also worth noting that there is, in fact, no cultural war! States are painted RED and BLUE based on which way they vote across the 50/50 line. However, if you look at a the map in shades of purple, the nation is almost entirely uniform in its purple-ness.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymappurpler1024.png
How horrible would it be for the people living in states like California or South Carolina when their state, which leans to whichever side by just 10-20% or so, suddenly goes and joins some “other nation” in which they are completely disenfranchised?
Furthermore, the base beliefs of 95% of the population are the same! The reason everyone thinks we are so divided is that we take 5 or 10 hot-button issues, which, while controversial, are actually almost entirely meaningless to the overall health of the nation, and then blow them up to appear like they’re tearing us in half. .
And all this over the health care bill?!?!? I mean.. for Pete’s sake! I don’t care how much you might hate the bill (and I don’t think anyone disagrees that its a highly flawed bill… its defenders, like myself, simply argue that we had to start SOMEWHERE!), but when all the hyperbole settles, while it might not be an excellent bill, it’s so FABULOUSLY uncontroversial! The detractors all seem to think that it portends a looming apocalypse of some sort, but the truth is that it will either improve things or it will not. If it doesn’t, we can try something else. If it does, well… great!
Not to start an argument about the health care bill in this thread… I’m just saying, I wish these clowns all the best with their circus… but it’s looking increasingly like all this sort of ranting is going to get them is guest appearances on Fox News.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 24, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@baw1064
Thanks for the observations and thoughtful reply.
A few comments:
“It’s hard to imagine, for instance, that had the Confederate states managed to achieve independence, that either the U.S. or the C.S. could have played the role in world affairs that reunited U.S. did. How would WW2 or the cold war have gone?”
True. Except there may not have been a Cold War or WW2 at all because the geopolitical landscape would probably have been very different in a USA/CSA world.
Think about this for a moment.
The USA and CSA are separate countries, both weaker as a result of being divided. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, geopolitical events move along as they did and eventually WW1 breaks out in Europe, except this time Germany wins because the US isn’t there to bail them out in 1917.
So this time, Germany wins WW1. What’s the impact?
1) No Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, thus no Soviet Union.
2) No Treaty of Versailles, thus no Weimar Germany
3) No Weimar Germany, thus no Adolph Hitler
4) No Hitler, no Nazi Germany, no Soviet Union, no WW2
Meaningless conjecture, obviously, but if there is no USA superpower to intervene in WW1, a lot of a bad shit that happened in the 20th century might not have happened at all.
We might have been able to avoid those things anyway if Woodrow Wilson had kept the US out of Europe, but he didn’t.
I’m a libertarian myself, except of the Ron Paul variety. So I tend to view US historical involvement in overseas matters as a negative, not a positive.
“If you broke up the country based on the conventional wisdom of red and blue states, both parts end up being very problematic, geographically. Bluestateia consists of two or three discontiguous parts, while Redstateia has no Pacific coast (except for Alaska, which isn’t accessible by land or sea from the rest of the country).”
This would be the hardest part, no doubt.
The way I look at it, the mountain West, pacific north West, and the South are pretty much Ron Paul and Jeff Sessions country if you exclude the liberal urban areas. So places like Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and the South would likely become the new Red State America. Or, there might be further disaggregation. Who knows.
A theoretical division of the country is not an insurmountable problem, however, because I really doubt a disaggregated Blue State USA/Red State USA would be at literal war with each other, so the lack of ideal geography might not matter.
People would still be free to move around; they would just have to temporarily put up with things they don’t like to do so. A Blue citizen driving from New York to LA, for example, might have to live with traveling through places where abortion is more restricted. Likewise, a Red Stater like myself who visits the northeast often would have to live with how things are done there.
“It’s worthwhile to look at Chinese history, which consists of alternating periods on unification and breakdown into regionalism. I’m not sure the U.S. really wants to follow that model”
Well, look at it this way — the U.S is going to follow the Chinese model at some point anyway.
The only question is when. It happens everywhere, always has, without exception.
If you consider the very long historical perspective, it’s obvious that nations and civilizations come and go all the time. Ancient Egypt. The Indus valley. Greece and Rome. The Mayans — all thriving centers of human activity at one time now gone.
As depressing as it sounds, the USA is going to get there too at some point.
Hopefully we all find a way to solve our problems and keep on trucking.
busboy33 // Jul 24, 2010 at 10:37 pm
@DSP:
The obvious answer is that session isn’t permitted. The Union is like a traditional Catholic marriage — no divorce allowed. It wasn’t “we are a Union until I decide I don’t want to be a Union anymore”. I didn’t like what W did running the country . . . but I’m not allowed to take my ball and leave. Why do I have to suck it up and suffer under the Rights administration, but as soon as they lose fair and square I STILL have to do what they want? Why should I let you walk out of this relationship?
*snide filter engaged*
I thought all you John Wayne Conservatives were real tough and strong. This is “I’m gonna hold my breath until I turn blue!” temper tantrum baloney. Lose the skirt Shirley! You realize the whiny liberals and tree-hugging hippies are looking far more manly and mature than the Right with all of this?
*snide filter disengaged*
On a more practical matter . . . when there IS a divorce, what is the fight always over? Property. Did all those seceeding States pay for their own roads? Did they pay for their Airports? If not, are you gonna pay us back? What about water rights? Does the New Confederacy get the Hoover Dam, or does it stay part of the Union? What about interstate power lines? Rural South and West . . . gonna produce enough food on that farmland? Is the “acrimony” between the factions going to improve if the Union has the Confederacy food supply in a stranglehold?
What are you offering in trade? You want out, then in a divorce its generally acceptable to make it worth the non-initiating party’s time. You get a pre-made country, paid for by my tax dollars. I get . . . what? Not having to listen to complainers complain? Palin and Rush aren’t THAT annoying.
As a theoretical question . . . what are you going to do when Texas decides to seceede from the Confederacy? Let them go with a smile? What if the panhandle decides to seceede from Texas? yes or no?
To solve a very minor and standard problem (there have been dissatisfied citizens since 1776), the proposed solution creates FAR to many new (very real) problems. It’s an interesting theoretical question, but in a real world application . . . no. Not practical.
JonF // Jul 25, 2010 at 10:02 am
Re: No Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, thus no Soviet Union.
Why not? If there’s still a WWI then the tsarist government in Russia still goes under. Also, it’s entirely possible that the USA and CSA end up in different sides of the conflict as in Harry Tutledove’s alternate history where the USA is Germany’s ally.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 25, 2010 at 12:18 pm
@busboy
All excellent points. Secession might spark some interesting speculation but little else.
That’s why this idiot was a fool to bring it up; instead of using dumb rhetoric, he should just stick to making the point that a lot of people are very unhappy with the health plan, which is true. That’s what people who mention secession (Rick Perry) are driving at — dissatisfaction with much of what the FEDGOV does and abuses of federal authority.
Anyway, in addition to issues around fairly dividing infrastructure, there is also the issue of private economic interdependence.
I live in the South but routinely do business in the northeast, so secession would definitely hurt me. In fact, every business in the country probably does business across Blue State/Red State lines, except for very small businesses. So secession would be economically disastrous for everyone.
Maybe what we need us a lot more capitalism and business opportunities for all; you want to see a Limbaugh admirer and an Olbermann admirer to put aside differences fast — give them a chance make some money together.
Another reason it would never work has to do with families; many of us have family all over the country — half my family is a far to the Left as I am to the Right.
So no, it would never work.
Here’s the thing though; we have a Constitutional framework in place right now that would let us solve many difficult problems if people would just take it seriously instead of laughing it off.
It’s called Federalism and the 10th Amendment. (No, this is not a veiled appeal for segregation).
Giving the states a lot more leeway to make the call on some questions, via a serious applicati0n of the 10th amendment, would solve many thorny issues.
Take gay marriage, for example. Every state makes it own rules on the details of marriage anyway. If Vermont and California want gay marriage — fine. But why do Utah and Alabama have to have it?
This is pretty much how it worked for abortion until SCOTUS overturned laws in all 50 states based on a non-existent “right to privacy.” Until that point, it was an issue for the individual states.
If we could go back to that, it would help.