On “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour, I suffered for more than 10 minutes watching the biggest joke of a “round table” I’ve seen outside of a Bill Maher show. Megan McCain was present – though someone has got tell this poor girl how the left is using her candid ignorance to disgrace the right – as if she belongs.
GEORGE WILL: Which is exactly what they said about Bill Buckley and Bill Buckley’s candidate, Barry Goldwater, who was supposedly representing the paranoid style in American politics.
AMANPOUR: Reagan had moderates on his, as Vice President and in his cabinet.
Two things stick out to me here. The first is the basis of Amanpour’s non-question. She implies that the conservatism of Buckley and Reagan was acceptable and/or mainstream. This isn’t anything new. Every time the elections get close the RINOs and the left both dig up the bones of Reagan, drag them around and act like they were always pals. In this case, Amanpour attempts to buddy up with Reagan and Buckley in order to legitimize her claim that the Tea Party is extreme. When George Will calls her out on this ridiculous statement, she completely ignores him and throws the bait to Terry Moran who nearly slipped on his drool to get this bit out.
TERRY MORAN: Different Republican Party. Hard times make anxious people do extreme things sometimes. If you look at the Tea Party constitution, if there is such a thing, at Joe Miller in Alaska saying unemployment compensation is unconstitutional, at the emphasis on the tenth amendment which is a very vague amendment which they want return power, power returned to the states, this is going to be a real challenge for the Republican Party going forward and it’s born of this anxiety.
There is a large distinction between vague and broad. The 10th amendment to the constitution is hardly unclear. The amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. How do you even begin to poke holes in the precision of that sentence?
The only reason this statement seems ambiguous to the left is because they’ve mucked it up so much. The predisposition is so murky, in fact, that Moran doesn’t even get the statement correct. Joe Miller is against FEDERAL unemployment compensation due to the fact that it is not a power given to the federal government through the U.S. Constitution. (Extreme!)
All of this begs the question; if this law is vague, as Mr. Moran describes it, what does he think the law means? Should we throw it out all together due to its cryptic meaning? Also, how would Mr. Moran write a statement more clearly regarding the limitations of federal powers over the states? Perhaps the authors should have been clearer and penned, “Don’t do anything we didn’t tell you to do, let the states and the people do that.” Later they could have written in that the Constitution was brought to us by the number 10 and the letter “E”…for extreme, naturally.