THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

 

Castle pulls a "Kerry"

He voted FOR Bush taking over the Delaware National Guard befor he was AGAINST it.

Castle voted for the House bill that gives the president the power to federalize the Delaware National Guard, but now we find out that he is having second thoughts.

According to Joe Ragolsky: (Castle)hopes the language will be dropped in House-Senate negotiations.

That is what Castle has come to...he HOPES. Let that sink in... Castle hopes for the best.

Pitiful. That is some energetic "moderate" leadership we have in Congress I must say.

Meanwhile the Democratic position is clear:

“Giving the president the authority to mobilize the Guard without the consent of the governors makes no sense." - Joe Biden


Here is my new question for Mrs Wenk, Castle press secretary:

When is Castle going to start doing something? I mean I guess it is nice that he "HOPES" the President does not get to take over the National Guard, but shouldn't he be doing more than simply HOPING. Shouldn't he use DELAWARE'S ONE VOTE IN CONGRESS to help stop the President from taking over the National Guard?

Comments:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
 
Weren't you dems railing about the President not "doing something" during Katrina?

Well, the force that would "do something" would be the National Guard, so if you want him to be able to "do something" he'd have to have power over the National Guard.

Consistency, kids.
 
if you want him to be able to "do something" he'd have to have power over the National Guard.

Bulls**t, all he has to do is get on the phone with the governors.
 
taylor,

Weren't you Rs railing about a the dangers of a powerful central government?

Consistency, kids.
 
Two words: National Guard.

I can't understand why the Guard isn't federalized to begin with, since they're part of the Reserves. Do state governors actually need private militias a la Mookie Al Sadr? The Guard reacts to natural disasters and so forth because they're available to do so, not because it's their primary function.

If you want to beat up on Castle, get an economist to figure out for you the net economic impact of the US State quarters. If, say, every household saves one of each quarter, that's a net of $12.50 per household that is being withheld from active circulation, a de facto hoarding. Mike Castle has single-handedly suppressed the economy by restricting the money supply! (M1 to be specific) Have fun.
 
anon 12:09

Cute.

What is your point?
 
I wasn't saying I was in support of centralizing the Guard; I'm, in fact, opposed.

And I'm not an R.
 
Basically - I totally agree with everything you said, I'm just wondering about the consistency.
 
Great scott, I find myself agreeing with Biden! The whole point of the national guard it to prevent the federal government from exercising too much power domestically. Posse Comatatus prevents the US armed forces from being deployed interenally unless there is a civil war. The national guard is that conterweight. How do you keep the peace in times of crisis w/o resorting to the federally controlled military? Local guys with military training; i.e. National Guardsmen.

We need more federalism, not less.
 
duffy I knew you were a true (althought misguided at times) patriot.
 
just thought it was interesting.
 
Actually, Duff, here's the relevant passage:

Article I, Section 8, Cl. 15 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Section 8 Clause 16 gives Congress the power "To provide . . . for governing such part of the [militia] as may be employed in the service of the United States," which presumably includes the power to put them under presidential control.

"Execute the laws of the Union" is sufficiently vague enough to make this law constitutional. However, that doesn't make it a good idea. And this is yet another case where Repubs in favor of it ignore their states' rights base, and Dems against it ignore their centralization roots. (Still, those who always bitch about what Bush does -- or doesn't -- offer interesting whines in this case. He tries to follow proper legal procedure and many Dems blast him as "not needing this!" to do the correct thing! Yeah? Tell that to Kathleen Blanco!)
 
I feel your pain Hube.

The Republicans have gone off the deep end and you can't (yet) admit that Democrats are right.

Here is the good news. You are still welcome in the party of common sense. We don't have elaborate memebership requirements.
 
"Right" about what, Jase?

But one thing will forever remain thus: I'll never share your ridiculously blind partisanship. Never. It's scary.
 
jason said: "We don't have elaborate memebership requirements."

Just don't disagree with them on national security, or they'll sic legions of bloggers on you with pictures of you in blackface.
 
Ha ha...

Legions of blogger...spooky!


Legion of people who put the constitution above the absent minded worship of George Bush.
 
Must've been the same legions who idolize Lincoln and FDR, eh?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]