(Advertisement)

Battle of ideology and sense

Posted: June 23, 2013 at 3:12 a.m.

Let’s say you represent a farm state in Congress. Let’s say Arkansas. Let’s say a group of your state’s leading farmers comes to see you.

John Brummett is blogging daily online.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 73 on 06/23/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

LETTERS

Simply for stink alone Re 8,500 tons of hog manure a year: That’s going to leave nothing but green algae all the way from Big Creek to Batesville, to say nothing of the sme... Read »

Next Story »

CAFO a mistake

The man who led our state’s Department of Environmental Quality under three governors says it was a big mistake to ever issue a permit to operate that concentrated animal f... Read »

He's bonafide wacko and relishes it.

Posted by: cdawg

June 23, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I also know this much: You can be intelligent and filled with integrity and nobly committed to hard work and still be so impractical and rigid and strident in obsessive adherence to your ideology that you do a political disservice to your constituents and the country."

Well said!

Posted by: SPA

June 23, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And Cotton isn't the only one like that up there in Congress.
Although many are impractical and rigid without any redeeming characteristics like intelligence and integrity.

Posted by: Coralie

June 23, 2013 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cotton's vote didn't cause the bill to fail. You all are acting like he alone was responsible for the failure. I would have joined the others and voted for it for the benefit of our State. Cotton is trying to be financially prudent and make our country think twice about our spending habits. So what do you all say about him trying to do that, you call him a wacko.

Look at Pryor, he voted for Obamacare. That's the main disaster of Obama's first term. Enough said.

I will take Cotton any day over Pryor!

Posted by: footballfan

June 23, 2013 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Cotton is trying to be financially prudent and make our country think twice about our spending habits. <<

But, later he gave thanks to feds for providing disaster relief for his district.

If he truly want to "think twice...spending habits" dare he should take a look at the elephant in the room, Dept of Defense.

We spend more on defense than the next closest 13 nations.

Posted by: cdawg

June 23, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>We spend more on defense than the next closest 13 nations.>

That should be

We spend more on defense that the closest 13 nations
combined!

So, no, Cotton is not interested in true fiscal conservatism. He's interested in appeasing the people who recruited him and paid his election expenses.

Posted by: cdawg

June 23, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cotton may be Harvard educated, like George W. Bush but, he's very willing to walk all over our Constitution to promote his war hawk extremism via amendments to punish family members:

"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday offered legislative language that would "automatically" punish family members of people who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, levying sentences of up to 20 years in prison.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

corruption of blood prohibited:

"Article III of the Constitution explicitly bans Congress from punishing treason based on "corruption of blood" -- meaning that relatives of those convicted of treason cannot be punished based only on a familial tie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05...

Posted by: cdawg

June 23, 2013 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Besides being unConstitutional, it is a primitive, barbaric notion.
What century are we living in, again?

Posted by: Coralie

June 23, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Can we Blame it on Bush?

Posted by: Moneymyst

June 23, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I also know this much: You can be intelligent and filled with integrity and nobly committed to hard work and still be so impractical and rigid and strident in obsessive adherence to your ideology that you do a political disservice to your constituents and the country."

Leave out the words "intelligent" and "integrity" and you're talking about John Brummett...

Posted by: mozarky2

June 23, 2013 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's simply a pointless insult because you disagree with Brummett.
I'm sure he has his personal flaws, but what indicates that he is either impractical or rigid?
Do words have no meaning for you except as brickbats, Mozarky?

Posted by: Coralie

June 24, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

John Brummett is an American hero second only to IrishMensa.

Posted by: Moneymyst

June 24, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I just noted an absurd headline over at the ADG blog:
MAN PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO SHOOTING SELF

it could apply equally to some of us here.

Posted by: Coralie

June 24, 2013 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )