I will say this about President Obama: He’s better than Howard Dean

A lot happened over the weekend, and I’ve chosen this one as my Monday Post. Howard Dean opined on the Sunday shows again. It seems he is once again pushing the Fairness Doctrine nonsense. First listen to this little gem from about two months ago. When you stop laughing, read on.

Putting aside for the moment that we have a Vice President who actually believes that both you and I are too stupid to decide for ourselves which news outlets are appropriate for us, but we are also incapable of acting as our own filters as to what to believe or not believe from those outlets. Next Dean decides to deride the members of the Tea Party for advocating the repeal of the 17th and 14th amendments. He claims that this shows an ignorance of the Constitution which is laughable. I am not going to argue the merits of repealing these amendments, rather who is actually ignorant of how the Constitution works, Howard Dean, or the nefarious Tea Party. The fact that the framework for both amending and repealing amendments to the Constitution is self evident. One, there are currently 27 amendments to the Constitution. The last one was added May 7, 1992. To find evidence of repeal, look no further than the 18th Amendment, which was repealed 18 years after it was added to the document. Score this one for the Tea Party. The next point is that this statement itself is advocating for regulating speech by a panel of bureaucrats, not elected, but appointed by other appointed bureaucrats in the FCC. Even a junior high kid would be able to point out that this flies in the face of the First Amendment. Score another for the Tea Party. Howard Dean is an imbecile, and there really is no diplomatic way to state that, or even lessen the blow. I guess the ironic thing is, we were told adnauseum by the same media Dean wants to add unconstitutional regulation to, that Sara Palin was the dummy. Even if Governor Palin were as dim as she was reported to be, if she were to attend an event with Joe Biden, she would have to wear an, “I’m with stupid,” tee shirt.

This article was originally posted on Musings of a Mad Conservative.


As a graduate of The Ohio State University, I began working as an Assistant Manager in a Woolworth store in 1986. After spending 19 years in retail management, I decided to change my life. I transitioned into the Financial Services industry. I currently work as a Financial Planner with my own firm in Rocky River, Ohio. Along the way I managed to collect 4 children and two ex-wives. My political views started out on the left, but as time went on, and I realized that consequences mattered, I gradually became more conservative. On another note, as I am brand spanking new to this blogging thing, please feel free to leave comments as to how I can improve in any comment thread. Thank you for your help.

  1. On many issues, and overall, I’d say Dean is better than Obama. You are, however, correct about the “Fairness
    Doctrine.” Just wait until that is applied to the web.

    As for Dean’s remarks about proposed amendment repeals, I would venture he probably knows the amendment repeal process exists, and that his point was probably that the amendments in question were important and necessary and should not be repealed.

    On another point, since HoT is now publishing self-declared conservatives, will it also publish self-proclaimed liberals/progressives as well?

  2. Thanks for the comment. It is interesting to note which two ammendments Dean is talking about. 14, is the one that gave us anchor babies. This was added to the constitution immediately after the Civil War to prevent former slave owners from denying citizenship to former slaves on the basis that they were not born citizens of the United States. It did not become an issue with inclusion of Anchor Babies until much later, I believe it was the wonderful 60’s. That this ammendment would be nescessary now is just plain silly.

    Next, let’s analyze the 17th. This one took the responsibility for choosing Senators from State Legislatures, and gave that to State wide elections. The problem a lot of folks have with this is the impact it had on national politics and the scope of power yielded by the Federal Government. As the framers of our Constitution had planned it, the House of Representatives would be elected by the people to be the people’s representatives in our national government. The Senate was established to represent the business of the States within the national government. By holding direct elections for the Senate, we have circumvented the legislative branch from being held accountable to the States. It has taked a century, but there is zero accountability of the Federal Government back to the States which comprise the United States. I would agree that the 17th ammendment has done far more damage than it has done good.

    It is one thing to disagree with these positions politically. What Biden did however was to dismiss the notion as crazy and ignorant of how the Constitution actually works. His comments showed arrogance and an attitude of being a ruling class elitist. He was able to accomplish this all within a minute forty seven.

    1. 14, is the one that gave us anchor babies.

      You say that like it’s a bad thing. Really, “anchor babies” would not even be an issue if we did the pro-liberty thing and stopped prosecuting people for crossing imaginary lines on the ground. The only legitimate property lines are those between legitimately owned property. To claim that the regime has some legitimate power to claim trespass is to claim that the regimes is a legitimate owner or part owner of all property in the country. If we make such a stunningly authoritarian claim, it logically follows that the regime has other rights/powers that normally go with property ownership over the whole country and everyone in it.

      That this ammendment would be nescessary now is just plain silly.

      A lot of constitutional case law is based on the 14th, far and beyond so-called anchor babies (of which, I hope there will be a lot more, pending going back to the far more sensible system in place for the vast majority of US history whereby people crossed the Mexican and Canadian borders freely without being stopped and questioned any time they wished, and seasonal workers came and went with the job market).

      Speaking of things that seem antiquated now, while your reading of the pre-17th amendment system of electing Senators is accurate, do you seriously believe that our system of government and the quality of our politicians would be greatly improved by having state legislators pick US Senators? Have you ever lobbied your state legislature? Observed a session from the gallery? I see very little to be excited about. Granted, I’m likewise little impressed by the general public’s choices, but if anyone can do even worse, it’s professional politicians. Let’s work to take power away from politicians, not rearrange deck chairs on how they are picked.

      Your last paragraph in the comment above does makes some sense, although you said Biden where you apparently meant Dean.

  3. Anchor babies are a bad thing. I am for persnonal freedom, but I am also not an anarchist. Some function of government is nescessary. Recognizing the actual role of a government is the trick. We have immigration laws in this nation for a good reason. Part of that reason is preservation of our national values and society. Anchor babies end up being a drain on my personal freedom by forcing the government to confiscate a larger portion of the fruits of my labor in order to support the new arrival and the extended family of the new arrival. I realize that we are a nation of immigrants, but those immigrants should be at least signing the guest book on the way in. By allowing the process to be circumvented, you are impinging on the freedoms of those immigrants who came here legally, and those of us who are citizens and are expected to pay for this party. This is all of course before we get into the crime statistics of illegal immigrants, their drain on our social welfare system, and the fact that they are not expected or even encouraged to follow the same laws as the rest of us.

    My wish to repeal the 17th amendment is based solely on the wish to reign in the Federal Government. No, I am not enamored of State Legislators, but at the same time, if we had not taken the step to remove the individual States from the business of running the Country, I know that the Fed would never have grown to the proportion it has. Part of the beauty of our Constitution is that it applies checks on the power individual people are able to accumulate and wield. The 17th amendment removed one of those checks. The system may seem antiquated now, but that is only because we are 90 years post event. The damage has been inflicted, but I am confident that the damage can also be reversed. Politicians are not usually known for their courage. If they are suddenly put in a position to be answering to the individual States. it will only take 90 years for the process to return to a place where the Fed. realizes it has a reign on its power.

    1. Well just wait til they take away all our freedoms, then the immigration issue will flow the other way.