Secession vs. Expulsion

In the political blog Big Jolly Politics I came across an article titled "Jerry Patterson Attacked by Kid in Puberty" in which the article sites another blogger, Ben Sherman, for attacking Jerry Patterson, a Lt. Governor candidate and a veteran of the Marines, for saying that instead of Texas seceding from the Union, we should expel other liberal states.  He goes on to say states like California and New York should be expelled due to his opinion that "their legislatures aren't representing them".  Big Jolly Politics argues that this attack on Patterson is unfounded and credits Sherman's attack on Patterson on his hormones.  Clearly a right leaning blog, this article intends to speak to Republican voters in order to rally support for Patterson in spite of his statement regarding expulsion of liberal states.  The author of Big Jolly Politics is calling Patterson's statement a "joke".  The evidence behind the authors argument that Patterson's statement was simply a joke is somewhat unclear and not presented in the article.  The blatant extremity of the statement suggests that, yes, it was a joke, however the last time our nation was politically divided and states began to secede the Civil War happened resulting in the deaths of three quarters of a million Americans.  Given that the repercussions of the Civil War and the lessons learned from it are still as important in American history today as they were 100 years ago, I believe that Lt. Governor candidate Jerry Patterson made a mistake by mentioning expulsion, even in a joking manner. There are simply too many ways people could be offended by the statement.  It is for this reason that I must disagree with the author of this article.

No Tea For Me

I recently read a post at Letters From Texas in which the author criticizes the Tea Party for questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship.  While the Tea Party argues that Obama was born in Kenya to a mother from Kansas, the author of the article points out that Republican Senator Ted Cruz was in fact born in Canada in attempt to enlighten the Tea Party’s hypocritical point of view.  The intended audience for Harold Cook’s article was undoubtedly the liberal minded and Democrats, however the article is also well read by anyone who enjoys light political humor.  The author, Harold Cook, is a political strategist who is well respected by both sides of the political community even though his views lean towards the left.  His opinion and ideas should be viewed as credible.   His argument is that it is neither fair nor logical to question the citizenship of one political figure while support is given to another political figure who’s citizenship might be equally questionable.

My opinion is that it is simply too late to argue about what should be and could be when there are so many more immediate concerns.  I agree with Harold Cook’s criticism of the Tea Party’s bickering over the issue of Obama’s citizenship.  It’s simply arguing for the sake of arguing which is contrary to the purpose political activists serve.  In my opinion the worst thing a political party can do is undermine their opponents by some off hand issue and thereby elevating themselves.  The whole point of a bipartisan system is that idealists from both sides of every story can come together and compromise in a manner that represents the greater population, not to tear your opponents down with technicalities for the sake of gaining power.