Your tax dollars at work, Colorado:
Attention: Col. Senate Minority Leader
It's amazing what sorts of bottom-feeding idiots get sent to State Houses. Indeed, the best argument against the principle of State's Rights is the caliber of people tasked to exercise them. In particular, the election and continuance in office of Col. State Sen. Dave Schultheis makes me wonder if Colorado has a state legislature qualified to legislate.
Yes, it's also a problem here in Canada. We actually have States that work like States; US States are in practice Provinces of a strong central government. And clearly, that's a good thing.
It is wise to remember that this was the single dissenting voice against a perfectly reasonable law that mandated HIV testing for pregnant mothers. But it's important to note that this person voted in a way that would likely embarrass one of the fictional patriarchs from "A Handmaid's Tale."
State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”
The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:
“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”
Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …”
Here in canada, it would not be terribly surprising to have something equally idiotic said in public by someone too dim-witted to realize they were committing an act of conspicuous stupidity, something so stupid that it could be used as a club to beat his political party with. I mean, we don't have intelligence tests as a precondition for citizenship, either. Alas. Mark my words, these words WILL matter in the next election. Heck, I can see ways to use them against the Republican Party as a whole.
The question is, though, what happens next. In Canada, well, we don't like being made to feel conspicuous by idiots. We are a genuinely Conservative nation in the "no sudden moves and no loud noises" way. This is true even of our rabid socialists. One may be a radical without being, you know, rude about it...
So, while it is to be understood, I think, by all beings of ordinary intelligence possessing an uncompromised senes of moral higyne that such an utterance probably indicates a person incapable of being held properly accountable in a legal or even social sense, nonetheless it would be reflexive to ensure - here - that it could not be thought to be the position of the party, or the leadership.
(And counting the vote tally, we can assume this to be true - even in Colorado.)
However, it's a shame that the Republican Senate Leader is, clearly, infected with the sort of Liberalism that republicans accuse Democrats of, the sort that is "so open minded, he's let his brain fall out." His response to this scandalous statement is as follows:
“People are entitled to their opinions,” the Grand Junction Republican said. “It’s not my job to go around and censure people and tell them what to say.”
Funny, MY understanding of Republican party discipline would suggest that is EXACTLY the job of the Senate Minority Leader. And even if that sort of rigid party discipline would not be the ideal of a Conservative or Liberal intetellectual engaged in the hard work of practical democracy in a functional Republic, as envisioned in the Constitution, there absolutely must be some recognition that there ARE limits when speaking with an -D or an -R after the name. Hm.
The previous paragraph might be difficullt for an electable Republican to parse. Let me put it more succinctly:
The proper response to this sort of public cornholing, Sir, is not to pretend you are large enough to accomodate it without discomfort.
The proper response is to kick the fool from your caucus; for otherwise, people must assume that all your work is contaminated with "contributions" of equal, manifest, conspicous stupidity - and that you, sir, are incapable and unqualified to discern the difference between shit and shinola.
I do hope some motion of censure passes by acclimation. Although, frankly, a recall petition is probably the more appropriate response. Should there not be - well, I suppose we must all conclude that he does actually serve as a legitimate representative of his constuancy.
A constituancy that clearly has no moral right to the franchise. By the way - is it possible that I might have to explain why Schultheis' statement is deeply offensive and utterly immoral from first principles, Christian or otherwise?
It takes more than a chrome fish, pal Sticker by webcarve