Thursday, September 10, 2015

Megyn Kelly: I am really starting to like this chick.

Megyn Kelly trips up patently unprepared Ben Carson with softball question about Kim Davis and slippery slopes

The GOP presidential hopeful swings and misses on a softball question about Kim Davis and religious freedom


Megyn Kelly trips up patently unprepared Ben Carson with softball question about Kim Davis and slippery slopes


Say what you will about Megyn Kelly, but unlike her compatriots who “ambush” their subjects with questions for which they have canned answers, she can genuinely surprise her guests with questions that cause them to blather incoherently, and she’s more than happy to stand silently by as they struggle to unburden themselves of the weight of their own palaver.



Case in point, on “The Kelly File” last night she spoke to GOP co-front-runner Dr. Ben Carson about U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s decision to catch-and-release Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. She opened innocuously enough, merely asking Carson whether Davis should have been jailed in the first place.
“I think what we need to look at is how we stop this thing from being a continuation,” Carson said. “When the Supreme Court made its decision, anyone should have known that this kind of thing was going to occur, and that it would escalate. Congress now has a responsibility to step up to the plate and protect the rights of all Americans.”
Carson continued with a stunning civics display by a presidential contender, saying that “the reason we have a divided government is [so that] when one branch does something that tilts the balance, the other branches need to pitch in and correct the situation.” Because they’re all absolutely co-equal, after all, with none have constitutionally guaranteed precedence over the others.
“Detractors might say that this is a slippery slope,” Kelly said, causing Carson’s eyes to widen noticeably. “Catholics might want to refuse to marry people who have been divorced, or Muslims might refuse to marry people who want to marry Christians — where does this end?”

Carson paused, adopted a look that his handlers have no doubt told him communicates “thoughtfulness,” then proceeded to ramble around the question. “But, but,” he said, “this is a very basic right.” (As any English professor, including this former one, will tell you, using “this” without a clear referent is a clear indication that you’re speaking before you know exactly what your subject is — literally.)
“This is a,” he continued, “a Judeo-Christian nation, in the sense that a lot of our values are based on a Judeo-Christian faith.” Having aired that tautology, he resorted to arguing that “there are a substantial number of people who support traditional marriage, and I’m one of them.”
“This is where some intellect needs to take place,” Carson said. “Our legislators need to sit down and ask themselves whether the rights of all Americans are protected. It requires a little bit of effort.”
Kelly’s face suggested that she wished she could require more of the same from Carson, but she’s a professional, so she moved on to asking Carson why he’s surging in the poll. Needless to say, he was no more clear on the reason behind his anticipated electoral success as he was on Davis case, asserting only that it had nothing to do with his race.


19 comments:

  1. Solon, you have got to be kidding, what a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So I rely on what Breitbart for the truth. That conservative lying rag?

      Delete
    2. Calm Dr. Carson casts quite a contrast to the slick BO doesn't he. This has to scare the shit out of the dem coalition creators.

      Delete
    3. Lying conservative rag vs lying progressive rag.

      And your point is what? Do you ever get outside your little bubble of liberalism to experience the real world.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for the deletion... the lack of clarity sometimes only shows itself to me 'after' I push the publish button.

      Carson like every other politician suffers from the same belief that it is both the right and responsibility of government to do something other than protect the nation from outsiders and protect citizens from the aggression of others citizens. He suffers from the same belief that rather than government being an adjunct to society, it and civil society are one in the same.

      The left and right are both guilty of this problem and it gets more acute as the left / right dichotomy progresses. Government is a facilitator not a dictator. Marriage should never have become a government institution in the first place, regardless of how strong one feels about the value of family. Government should only involve itself in the honourable disposition of the marriage contract. The state should help with the enforcement of all uncoerced[sic] contracts from wherever they originate. The state should ‘promote’ the general welfare, not dictate it.

      Where the right continually gets caught out in this discussion is that on one hand they assert the right of people to run their own lives but on the other they impose government restrictions (like who can and can’t marry) on that right. The left on the other hand has no such qualms in giving the state the right to inject itself in any situation no matter how small... as long as THEY think it is good for the society they envision...

      Neither actually believes that the individual has any rights other than those bestowed by the state and the majority on any given day... Sounds less like an experiment than a pair of opposing social recipes to me.

      Delete
    2. In 2004 certain Kentucky clerks were lauded for issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. This was not supported by law yet none of these clerks cooled their heels in jail.

      Delete
    3. Then you, as I pointed out about politicians in the first paragraph believe that it is not only the right of government but the responsibility of government to create social policy? If that is that case then the only thing you should have a problem with here is that you particular side in this argument was lost. If you believe that society can take care of its own social matters then what ought to bother you isn’t that the clerk was, in essence, sanctioning the marriage between two people of the same sex but that the government was involved in ‘sanctioning’ any relationships what so ever...

      And what defensible law under the constitution of these United States prevented them from issuing a marriage license to any couple who requested one?

      The reason, I would presume, that these lauded clerks did not go to jail is that either no one had grounds on which to charge them or no one had enough interest in pursuing the case. Rather than getting bent out of shape over government treating all of its citizens equally, a rather more pressing situation exists where government is forcing citizens into private relationships that they do not want to be in.... that is a situation of real concern.

      Delete
    4. What, you think people should actually break the law before they are arrested! Anyone who does something I personally dislike should face the gallows. So there!

      Delete
    5. TS, I think marriages should be performed in whatever religious institutions anyone believes in. Government grants licences for one reason, to raise funds for bigger government.

      Delete
    6. Mick, I suppose that you would endorse the same clerk issuing a licence to a poligamist and his six wives, or a HS teacher marrying her sixth grade student, or someone like Max marrying a horse.

      If Max wants to formalize his relationship with a beast let his own form of God bless that happy circumstance. Licenses promote the expansion of mommy government and the proliferation of the lawyer class.

      Delete
    7. TS, these are two excellent posts.

      Delete
    8. Marriage licenses have also been the subject of controversy for affected minority groups. Perhaps most notably, California's Proposition 8 has been the subject of heavy criticism by advocates of same-sex marriage, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community whose ability to marry is often limited by the aforementioned state intervention. This changed on June 26, 2015, with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. However, the state and federal intervention still continues to limit the ability of members of other minority religious groups from marrying according to the dictates of their religious tenets, as is the case with Islam and polygamy, for example. Polyamorous and polyandrous marriages are, likewise, still prohibited.

      In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the NAACP and ACLU, to call for his resignation or firing. Bardwell resigned his office on November 3.

      Delete
  3. This looks as though it could get interesting. Any topic which seeks to define and differentiate responsibilities between National or State government and its citizens is always good for a barney.

    The case under discussion has received considerable publicity here, not least because our National Government is struggling with the problem of same sex marriage.(in Australia it is currently illegal). So what do I think of the situation in Rowan County?.

    It seems to me that there is/was a legal requirement for the Clerk to perform the duties for which she is paid. If religious views prevent an employee from performing her duties she has two options, she can transfer to a department where there is no conflict with her religious beliefs or she can resign from the service by whom she is employed.,

    If readers allow my argument to stand, most unlikely given the William and TS are involved! Then there is no conflict and no argument. To perhaps prejudge TS and to respond to his point: quote Carson like every other politician suffers from the same belief that it is both the right and responsibility of government to do something other than protect the nation from outsiders and protect citizens from the aggression of others citizens. He suffers from the same belief that rather than government being an adjunct to society, it and civil society are one in the same.”: Unquote. This is a bog standard response from all who are against the government as a matter of principle. It is the response not of the man working on the factory floor or the man toiling for twelve hours a day as he follows his single horse and plough along countless furrows of the sameness which constitutes drudgery. This man, and others put trust in the government they elect to look to their welfare, to protect their nation and to ensure fairness to all citizens. These are the peoples who need to be governed, they are incapable of governing themselves.

    So what does TS want? Simply put TS appears to want the government to do only that which the constitution spells out. In this is appears to be joined by William and together they want- a system which forces the least able to defend them selves and their families from poverty to remain impoverished. They perhaps want the status quo to remain for ever.

    I contend that Government and the people are one and the same. Government comes from the people. The people provide the government and in this same government they entrust their future. Where the system fails is when the rights of the people are usurped by the actions of small groups of political activists. These are the Lobbyists, a group of parasites upon society who serve the master who pays them best. They have no morals, no conscience and no interest in any thing or anyone but the next dollar they are going to receive.

    Stop railing at the government, you the people put them into power, it is you the people who have the democratic right to remove them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with your original contention that a person, elected or hired should do their job as defined or quite... but you just had to stir the pot with your next comment....

      “Stop railing at the government, you the people put them into power, it is you the people who have the democratic right to remove them.” Ah thee utopian dreamer. You suppose a system of democracy without the many problems inherent in that system.

      Tytler dismisses the more optimistic vision of democracy by commentators such as Montesquieu ... and yourself... as "nothing better than an Utopian theory”... "While man is being instigated by the love of power—a passion visible in an infant, and common to us even with the inferior animals—he will seek personal superiority in preference to every matter of a general concern"

      You suppose that it is the electorate that elects their representatives and in the counting of votes for and against, I suppose you are correct. What makes your vote mostly worthless is that the person offered up for your vote was vetted far away from the masses who suppose the sovereign power to select their ...ruler(?). Alexander Fraser Tytler of course goes into great and logical detail about this problem so I shant bore with the particulars.

      President Obama is a case in point. An obscure Illinois Senator who had no national recognition and no business, economic or foreign policy experience. Only the party pushing a first term senator as a key note speaker at the National Convention and then pushing his presidency made it so. From one of obscurity to extraordinary goodwill around the world including a Noble Peace Prize but for what? Was ‘Hope’ a key word to mobilize the proletariat? His historical connections contend that he would be president as far back as the early 90’s before he was elected to the state office. His long time mentors and associates are far from mainstream centrists. Americans were given two choices, not of exceptional leaders but a black and a woman. Did America actually conclude that all of its problems, social, economic and political came down to ‘choosing’ a black or a woman? On the Republican side, that system worked through vote rigging and rule changes to deny Ron Paul a rightful place at the convention which would have, if not give him the nomination, allowed him the national platform that he was due.

      We all know Tocqueville ‘s harangue about the frailties of democracy when the electorate finds that it can vote itself goodies, well the loose fiscal policy problem that he identified long ago is well established not only in the American budget but in the American psyche as well. ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ so carefully implanted suggests... no, asseverates, that the state can’t run out of money. Social programs abound, dependency... and votes assured.

      Candidates sourced and vetted before the electorate even know their names... but to what end and by who? The corruption that comes from lobbyists is bribery which begs the question; who is worse the briber or the characterless individual who will not say no or a system that not only allows but encourages them to do business with each other.

      By giving government the legal reins and power to inject itself into the private affairs of people, corruption is sure to visit each of those places. Restraining the government from those places stops the corruption, increases a person’s self reliance and allows society the freedom to grow as IT chooses.

      You can dibble dabble about the less capable but human generosity has proven itself to be a great part of the American spirit... a generosity that is being extinguished by law and social ordering that cares less about the electorate and more about the palace the planners occupy...

      So to ask of your original comment – Short of open revolt, the electorate have the power to replace who for whom exactly?

      Delete
  4. "This is a bog standard response from all who are against the government as a matter of principle. It is the response not of the man working on the factory floor or the man toiling for twelve hours a day as he follows his single horse and plough along countless furrows of the sameness which constitutes drudgery. This man, and others put trust in the government they elect to look to their welfare, to protect their nation and to ensure fairness to all citizens. These are the peoples who need to be governed, they are incapable of governing themselves."

    This is an interesting if dismissive comment.... I think I have read it elsewhere before... perhaps by Lenin or maybe Mussolini or both...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No TS, the words do not matter, the authorship matters even less. As a matter of fact the words and the sentiment are mine alone. Hopefully they serve to remind readers that we are all different, we all have different levels of education and we have all made different decisions as to how we order our lives.
      We have accepted obligations as part of being human and living within an organized society. Of course we have kicked over the traces on occasions and of course we have been irked by what may be considered poor decision making by the government, of whichever persuasion happens to hold the reins at the time.

      What we have which binds us is the simple ideal of democracy, a term which you appear to find offensive. Well I offer the suggestion that democracy for centuries is the political system, the creed and the ideal to which almost all nations return following failed experiments with other forms of societal arrangement.

      I am not concerned with the boxes you constantly use to compartmentalize and classify opinions other than your own. I do note that there is a propensity among Americans to try to conveniently classify and file that which they do not understand. I too, when I wrote that about which you complain, thought that it read a little like the early writing of Engles, but then, was every pamphlet and utterance of Engles, Marks and Lenin worthy of nothing other than burning? So much of it was of course burnt when Germany decided on yet another even worse attempt to redesign modern society.

      TS,if you cannot live with the present government then you are of course at liberty to try to change it. As you start on your journey of enlightenment, please remember it is the principals of Democracy which are at your elbow and if you are guided by those principals, you will at least remain out of the slammer!

      Cheers from Aussie.
      NB Concerning our previous debate, afraid I have not the time nor the inclination to respond to the excerpts you have quoted. I feel that they do little more than occupy space which could have been better used in displaying your own thoughts.

      Delete
    2. TS I may have done you a disservice, perhaps your reference above was to assist in an enquiry I made in passing some days ago. Perhaps the reference would assist with the Black freedom movement. If that was your intent, I apologies for my inability to recognize help when it is offered
      Cheers from Aussie

      Delete
  5. "So what does TS want? Simply put TS appears to want the government to do only that which the constitution spells out."

    Nah... I'd rather live in a lawless society that has no rules, only the mighty hand of government to tell me what is right and wrong... and to tell me what my rights are... or aren't.

    ReplyDelete