Dangerous Intersection: The Knockout Game and Stand Your Ground

By now, I’m sure that most everyone has heard about the “Knockout Game”. For those who’ve been living under a rock, the “game” involves teens walking up to innocent passersby and attempting to knock them out with a single punch.

This is obviously a frightening situation.

So query the following: Let’s say that you’re like the man in the video above, walking down an alley on your way home from work or maybe on your way to lunch, when you see a group of teenagers walking toward you. You don’t know if those kids are “playing” the knockout game, but you’ve heard about the game and scene videos of the “game”. Is is reasonable for you to be concerned that the teenagers approaching you might be playing the knockout game? Should you take steps to avoid those kids? Should you go into a defensive posture, just in case?

Can you draw your gun and kill them before they attack you?

Yes, you read that last question right. If you’re worried that an approaching group of teens might be playing the knockout game, can you kill them to prevent them from attacking you?

I’m going to come back to that last question in a moment. But first, I want to take a moment to address the simpler (well, not really…) question about evasive or defensive actions. Obviously, we should all be aware of our surroundings. That is a basic rule for safety. And there is nothing wrong with avoiding an obviously dangerous situation or taking defensive precautions if a situation is unavoidable.

What concerns me is the question of which groups of teens will (or should) cause people to take avoidance or defensive precautions. I remember when President Obama spoke about the Trayvon Martin shooting and about growing up black in America. I was really struck by his reminiscences of what it was like to be a young black man in America:

I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator.

There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And, you know, I — I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.

And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

And that just felt so … wrong … to me. Obviously, I didn’t grow up as a black teen. I can’t imagine what it must be like to know that others, especially whites, look at you with suspicion in their eyes, solely on the basis of the color of your skin. I can’t imagine the pain that must cause or how much that must make you feel like an outsider in your own country, your own city. It saddens me that we live in a society where that sort of racial profiling still exists.

And yet I’m also saddened that we live in a society where random acts of violence like the knockout game exist. And when I hear that, at least in Brooklyn, it appears that there is indeed a racial, religious, or cultural element to the targeting in the knockout game — a sort of reverse profiling, if you will — then I’m honestly not sure how I should feel. I don’t want to look at a group of teens and worry that they might choose to hurt me; yet wouldn’t I be stupid not to take precautions, just in case?

Which brings me back to the uglier question: Can a person who is worried that a group of teens might be playing the knockout game and might be sizing that person up as a target, take preemptive action and kill the teens before they have a chance to attack? To answer that question, let’s take a look at Indiana’s “stand your ground law” (Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2):

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

I’m not sure if racially profiling a group of teenagers qualifies as a “reasonable belief” … but I’m also not sure, especially in light of news of the “knockout game”, that someone would be unreasonable if they were to look at a group of teenagers, especially if the teens looked “dangerous” and conclude that the imminent use of unlawful force (i.e., a knockout punch) was likely. Moreover, I’m not sure precisely how the first sentence and the second sentence actually work together in application. The second sentence grants a person the right to use deadly force (without retreating or seeking to avoid the confrontation) if that person “reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury”.

So, again, consider a person walking down an alley — with knowledge of the existence of the “knockout game” — and seeing a group of teens approaching. Does that person have a reasonable belief that those teens might be planning to “play” the knockout game? Is that belief more or less reasonable if we take into consideration how the teens are dressed or the color of their skin or the neighborhood in which our protagonist is walking? In a perfect world, certainly skin color should play no part whatsoever in that analysis. Unfortunately, ours is not yet a perfect world and I (shamefully, I’ll admit) think that it probably would be unreasonable to suggest that the appearance of potential assailants be ignored. Moreover, we can’t ignore both what we’ve seen in the videos about the knockout game or the fact that those “playing” endeavor to make their attack one of shock, awe, and, most of all, surprise.

So can that hypothetical man, seeing a group of teens walking toward him, a group of teens who, on the basis of their appearance, just might be playing the knockout game, take preemptive action to keep himself safe, even if that preemptive action involves a gun?

My conclusion? I don’t have one. Not really. I don’t want to see anyone get killed, especially innocent teens doing nothing more than walking down a street with their friends. By the same token, though, I don’t want to see innocent people attacked by teens intent of causing mayhem or injury as a show of machismo or something. I think that we need to take reports of the “knockout game” seriously. But we also need to understand what might be fueling this sort of violence. Is it rage? Is it a devaluing of human life? I don’t know. We need to find ways to fight the causes of this sort of conduct. And we must be sure that we are taking appropriate efforts to keep people safe on our streets. But, at the same time, we must be vigilant against vigilante justice or the shoot first mentality that laws like “stand your ground” promote.

I fear that as word of the knockout game spreads and as further incidents are discussed in the media, it won’t be long before people begin to act in preemptive self-defense. And once we start down that road, how long will it be before innocent black teens begin to die for the crime of walking down a street while black? For that matter, how long will it be before innocent teens begin to stand their own ground against those they worry might act on the mistaken belief that the teen is playing the “knockout game”. What is the old cliché? “Violence begets violence?” I worry that the intersection of fears, both rational and irrational, the easy access to firearms, and “shoot first” laws like “stand your ground” will prove a fertile ground for yet more violence and mayhem on our streets where the likely victims will be the innocent and our own sense of safety.

(For my previous posts on Indiana’s “stand your ground law” please see Stand Your Ground: An Analysis and Stand Your Ground: A Further Analysis.)

The Filibuster

It looks like Senate Democrats have decided that they’ve had enough of the obstructionism from Senate Republicans and will, therefore, go forward with the “nuclear option” to amend the Senate’s rules concerning the use of the filibuster. [Note: I started writing this post during lunch, a few hours before the vote was taken…] Now, let me say at the outset that I do think that the filibuster has its time and place; however, I think that the modern filibuster is a poor shadow of what a filibuster is supposed to be and it’s use has been so badly abused that reform was needed.

Once upon a time, in order to filibuster a bill, a Senator had to stand at the lectern and talk and talk and talk and talk. Eventually, either the Senator would tire or the rest of the Senate could recognize the point and move on or something else more pressing would come up and the Senate would table the legislation being filibustered. One of the nice things about that “old school” model was that the filibuster could be tied directly to the Senator leading it and that Senator was virtually obligated to explain his or her objections to the legislation (or nominee) during that floor speech. A senator wasn’t going to stand up before the Senate (and the American people) and say, “I object to this nomination because I didn’t get my way on something else” or “I object to this nomination unless I get my way on something else”. Politics just didn’t work that way. Objection to the legislation or nominee really had to be tied to, well, the legislation or the nominee.

But then the filibuster changed and senators could filibuster a bill without the need for a speech or even really taking responsibility. Rather, the minority party can simply object to bringing legislation or a nominee to a vote and require the majority to muster 60 votes to get around that procedural hurdle. Without 60 votes, the legislation or nomination dies. Do we really want the Senate’s role of providing advice and consent to the President on nominations to require a super-majority, even when objection to a nomination is not based on the qualifications or views of the nominee?

Before I go further, I’d like to share three infographics put out by the Senate Democrats. I think that these infographics are quite illustrative of the problem and why a fix is necessary. (Note: I have not independently checked the statistics in these infographics).

I think that the last infographic is the most telling. You’ll hear Republicans yell and scream that “Democrats did it too” referring to Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s nominees. And, sure enough, Democrats did filibuster President Bush’s nominees 7 times (and objected to Republican efforts to change the filibuster rules). But those 7 Democratic filibusters were 2 fewer than Senate Republicans filibusters of President Clinton’s nominees. Moreover, the sudden uptick in filibusters of President Clinton’s nominees was obviously not tied to Democratic filibusters of President George H.W. Bush’s nominees (who were never filibustered).

I’ve previously written about Republican abuse of the filibuster (such as the time in 2010 that Sen. Bunning filibustered a nomination … that he and every other Republican eventually voted for) or, more importantly, the Republican filibuster of any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not because of any objection to the qualifications or even ideology the nominees, but rather because Republicans didn’t get their way when the law that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was passed. (My post Using the Advice & Consent Clause with the Filibuster to Impede the Function of Government includes some history of the filibuster and more examples of abuse.) Remember what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said (emphasis added):

Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people — and more transparent.

In late October, Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt, President Obama’s nominee to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. As far as historians can tell, Rep. Watt was the first sitting member of Congress to be successfully filibustered since before the Civil War. And, during the last few weeks, Senate Republicans also filibustered 3 of President Obama’s judicial nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They did so, not because of ideological opposition to any of those nominees or because any of them were unqualified. Rather, the nominations were filibustered because Republicans don’t want the balance of that court to shift from right to left as it would if the three unfilled positions on that court were filled. Republicans have said that President Obama is trying to “pack the court” by filling vacancies, notwithstanding that no less than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has said that those vacancies need to be filled. Of course, Senate Republicans had no problem filling vacancies on that court when the nominations came from a Republican President. Or consider Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-South Carolina) threat to block all nominees until he gets additional information about Benghazi (and note further than Sen. Graham’s threat came in the wake of CBS’ bogus 60 Minutes story that had to be retracted once it was demonstrated that the principal source in that story lied).

In fact, the hypocrisy on display from some Republicans is truly stunning (even by the standards of politics generally and Washington politics in particular). Witness, for example, these quotes compiled by Right Wing Watch:

1. Mitch McConnell (KY)

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).

“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).

2. John Cornyn (TX)

“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).

“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).

3. Lamar Alexander (TN)

“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).

“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).

4. John McCain (AZ)

“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).

5. Chuck Grassley (IA)

“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).

“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).

6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)

“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).

7. Lindsey Graham (SC)

“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).

8. Johnny Isakson (GA)

“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).

9. James Inhofe (OK)

“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).

10. Mike Crapo (ID)

“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).

11 . Richard Shelby (AL)

“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).

12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*

Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

So Senate Democrats finally decided that enough was enough. Here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nevada) speech in favor of changing the Senate’s rules to do away with filibusters but only for presidential nominations and excluding nominations to the Supreme Court:

Transcript (via Talking Points Memo):

The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken. And I believe the American people are right.

During this Congress – the 113th Congress – the United States Senate has wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction. As a result, the work of this country goes undone. Congress should be passing legislation that strengthens our economy and protects American families. Instead we’re burning wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters.

Even one of the Senate’s most basic duties – confirmation of presidential nominees – has become completely unworkable. For the first time in history, Republicans have routinely used the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his executive team or confirming judges.

It is a troubling trend that Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even when they have no objection to the qualifications of the nominee. Instead, they block qualified executive branch nominees to circumvent the legislative process. They block qualified executive branch nominees to force wholesale changes to laws. They block qualified executive branch nominees to restructure entire executive branch departments. And they block qualified judicial nominees because they don’t want President Obama to appoint any judges to certain courts.

The need for change is obvious. In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years. These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the President his team.

This gridlock has consequences. Terrible consequences. It is not only bad for President Obama and bad for the United States Senate; it’s bad for our country. It is bad for our national security and for our economic security.

That’s why it’s time to get the Senate working again – not for the good of the current Democratic majority or some future Republican majority, but for the good of the country. It’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Republican Leader pledged that, quote, “this Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.” We’re told in scripture that, “When a man makes a vow... he must not break his word.” Numbers 30-2. In January, Republicans promised to work with the majority to process nominations… in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Exactly three weeks later, Republicans mounted a first-in-history filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense. Despite being a former Republican Senator and a decorated war hero, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s nomination was pending in the Senate for a record 34 days, more than three times the previous average. Remember, our country was at war. Republicans have blocked executive branch nominees like Secretary Hagel not because they object to the qualifications of the nominee, but simply because they seek to undermine the very government in which they were elected to serve.

Take the nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There was no doubt about Mr. Cordray’s ability to do the job. But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren – went for more than two years without a leader, because Republicans refused to accept the law of the land – because they wanted to roll back a law that protects consumers from the greed of big Wall Street banks.  I say to my Republican colleagues, you don’t have to like the laws of the land. But you do have to respect those laws, acknowledge them and abide them.

Similar obstruction continued unabated for seven more months, until Democrats threatened to change Senate rules to allow up-or-down votes on executive nominees. In July, after obstructing dozens of executive nominees for months, and some for years, Republicans once again promised that they would end their unprecedented obstruction.

One look at the Senate’s Executive Calendar shows nothing has changed since July.  Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no agreement had ever been reached. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no vow had ever been made. There are currently 75 executive branch nominees ready to be confirmed by the Senate that have been waiting an average of 140 days for confirmation. One executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water our children and grandchildren drink and the air they breathe has waited more than 800 days for confirmation.

We agreed in July that the Senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper functioning of government. But consistent and unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Caucus has turned “advise and consent” into “deny and obstruct.”

In addition to filibustering a nominee for Secretary of Defense for the first time in history, Senate Republicans also blocked a sitting member of Congress from an Administration position for the first time since 1843. As a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Mel Watt’s understanding of the mistakes that led to the housing crisis made him uniquely qualified to serve as administrator of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Senate Republicans simply don’t like the consumer protections Congressman Watt was nominated to develop and implement.  So they denied a fellow member of Congress and a graduate of Yale Law School even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote.

In the last three weeks alone, Republicans have blocked up-or-down votes on three highly qualified nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered by many to be the second highest court in the land. Republicans have blocked four of President Obama’s five nominees to the D.C. Circuit, whereas Democrats approved four of President Bush’s six nominees to this important court. Today, 25 percent of the D.C. Circuit Court is vacant. There isn’t a single legitimate objection to the qualifications of any of these nominees. Yet Republicans refused to give them an up-or-down vote – a simple yes-or-no vote. Republicans simply don’t want President Obama to make any appointments at all to this vital court.

Further, only 23 district court nominees have been filibustered in the entire history of this country.  Twenty of them were nominated by President Obama. With one out of every 10 federal judgeships vacant, millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve. More than half the nation’s population lives in a part of the country that’s been declared a “judicial emergency.”

The American people are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people want Washington to work for American families once again.

I am on their side, which is why I propose an important change to the rules of the United States Senate. The present Republican Leader himself said, “The Senate has repeatedly changed its rules as circumstances dictate.” He is right. In fact, the Senate has changed its rules 18 times by sustaining or overturning the ruling of the presiding officer in the last 36 years, during the tenures of both Republican and Democratic majorities.

The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominees get an up-or-down vote on confirmation – yes or no. This rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than Supreme Court nominees a majority threshold vote – yes or no.

The Senate is a living thing. And to survive, it must change. To the average American, adapting the rules to make Congress work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work – regardless of who’s in the White House or who controls the Senate. To remain relevant and effective as an institution, The Senate must evolve to meet the challenges of a modern era.

I have no doubt my Republican colleague will argue the fault lies with Democrats. I can say from experience that no one’s hands are entirely clean on this issue. But today the important distinction is not between Democrats and Republicans. It is between those who are willing to help break the gridlock in Washington and those who defend the status quo.

Today Democrats and Independents are saying enough is enough. This change to the rules regarding presidential nominees will apply equally to both parties. When Republicans are in power, these changes will apply to them as well.  That’s simple fairness. And it’s something both sides should be willing to live with to make Washington work again.

I think that rules that give the minority the ability to slow down a majority intent on “steam-rolling” the minority is probably a good idea. Rules that lead to reasoned debate are good rules. Rules designed to force the parties to work across the aisle or to craft bipartisan comprise are good rules. But when any rule is abused and is used, not for the purposes for which it is intended, but to prevent the majority from actually governing, to deprive a President of his Constitutional authority, and in manner that is devoid of substantive objection, then it is time for that rule to be re-considered. The filibuster has its use but that use has been abused. Badly. And that abuse has been bad for the functioning of the government, has rendered a key power of the President a near nullity (absent a super-majority), and renders the old claim that “elections have consequences” a farce.

It is time for Democrats to pull the trigger and reform the filibuster. And they did.

Postscript: I really detest the phrase “nuclear option” to describe a change in rules. Nuclear war suggests millions, even billions of dead people. It suggests all out war with no hope for survival. It suggests, well, evil. Changing rules of order within a democratic process is not akin to nuclear war any more than a faulty website is akin to a hurricane or a war. Analogies are fine, but they need to be appropriate. Nuclear option as an analogy for changing rules to avoid abuse is not such an appropriate analogy.

Using the Claim of “Religious Freedom” as a Weapon Without Considering What it Really Means

I started this post on Thursday. However, before I could finish the post, a tweet directed my attention to the floor speech by Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana) against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on the basis of “religious freedom”. Thus, I went back and re-worked the draft post so that I could discuss Sen. Coats’ comments as well.

One of the relatively new memes to appear from those who oppose marriage equality is the claim of “religious freedom”. This same argument has also been used in the debate over the birth control mandate and with regard to efforts to seek employment protection for the LGBT community. However, many of those using the claim of “religious freedom” do so as a weapon to justify discrimination or as an excuse to deprive rights and freedoms to others. Moreover, they make the claim of “religious freedom” without any real examination of how the conduct or right at issue actually impacts the freedom to worship or the broader implications of what the claim of “religious freedom” might really mean. And, unfortunately, this “religious freedom” argument seems to be gaining ground as its seductive simplicity has appeal to those who don’t bother to burden themselves with a small dose of independent thought or common sense.

Before I get into the discussion of “religious freedom” itself, let’s first recall what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Note that the First Amendment doesn’t talk about “religious freedom” but, rather, the “free exercise” of religion.

Earlier this week, I came across a link to a blog from Monica Boyer, a Northern Indiana Tea Party leader that argues that her religious freedom is under “direct assault” (emphasis in original):

Religious Freedom is under direct assault. There is no doubt about it. One doesn’t have to look very far in order to feel the jabs and pain of this new “America” we are living in. However, Americans face a decision. More specifically, Hoosiers face a decision.

1. Accept this as the “new norm” or
2. Decide that religious freedom is worth fighting for.

If you fall in the category of the first choice, I respectfully ask that you exit this blog, as it is not for you. If you are of the 2nd category, I ask you to buckle up. I want to provide you with talking points and the resources you need to engage with the opposition and those who may simply not understand the importance or relationship between the attack on religious freedom and protecting marriage from being re-defined.

For those who stand for religious freedom, the truth is right at the tip of our fingers. But we must use it. If you have the facts, you will be ready to engage. Below are some arguments the left uses to try to tear apart the family and attack religious freedom.

It’s important to note that in this fight to protect marriage and traditional values, we don’t hate anyone. In fact quite the opposite is true. This fight has nothing to do with preventing anyone from living together, holding property together, or prohibiting anything. It has everything to do with protecting an institution that was ordained by God from the beginning of time, and protecting that freedom our forefathers fought to give… Religious Freedom.

…

Marriage is not a private matter. It affects entire communities, states, and cultures. It is the foundation to a civil society. Not only is marriage the foundation, but by allowing activist judges  to come in and re-define this institution, we strip our society of religious freedom. We take away our right of conscience to live life according to Biblical principles. By allowing the few activists to come in and strip the meaning of marriage, we take away the freedom of the pulpit and the freedom for our pastors to speak truth from the Word of God.

Indiana already had a law defining marriage between one man and one woman, why do we need to amend the Constitution?

Indiana is a stones throw away from a Supreme Court decision by an activist judge re-defining marriage in the State of Indiana. It has already happened in Massachusetts and Iowa. New Jersey is the latest state to have a judge force a new public policy on marriage upon schools, businesses, charities and churches. Without the protection of a Constitutional amendment, traditional marriage just awaits a legal attack by activists who want to tear apart the foundation of our society.

And so on and so forth.*

But, as I mentioned at the outset, the claim of “religious freedom” is being used as a cudgel to oppose, not just marriage equality, but also laws that seek to end employment discrimination against members of the LGBT community (for those who are unsure, LGBT is an acronym for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender”). Just yesterday, Sen. Coats (sadly, my Senator…) was the only Senator to offer a speech on the floor of the Senate against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):

(I’m having trouble embedding the video of Sen. Coats’ speech; if it isn’t working for you, you can watch the video at this link.)

I oppose discrimination of any kind, and that includes discrimination, however, also of individuals or institutions for their faith and values. This often gets lost, and it has been lost in this discussion. So there’s two types of discrimination here we’re dealing with and one of those goes to the very fundamental right granted to every American through our Constitution, a cherished value of freedom of expression and religion. And I believe this bill diminishes that freedom. So I feel it’s vital for this body to stand up for our country’s longstanding right to the freedom of religion and speech. For these reasons, I am not able to support this current legislation, and I hope my colleagues would stand with me in protecting religious freedom and oppose this legislation, and I hope my colleagues would stand with me in protecting religious freedom and oppose this legislation.

Did you get that? Sen. Coats believes that a law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is discriminatory to those who might want to discriminate because their faith tells them to. And, he seems to believe that discrimination is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and speech. Seriously. I didn’t say it; he did.

I wonder how Sen. Coats or Boyer would react if I said that allowing Red Lobster to serve shellfish or Bob Evans to serve bacon, allowing Walmart to sell garments made of two fabrics, or allowing barber shops to trim men’s hair, all infringed on my religious freedom? After all, G-d said that all of those things were an abomination. Or perhaps a different analogy might be better. Though I don’t know her, from the material that I have read, I suspect that Boyer would favor stricter laws (or even a constitutional amendment) to ban or further reduce abortions. And I know that Sen. Coats would favor such laws. Yet if I said that those laws might have a direct impact upon the ability of a Jewish woman to act in accordance with her faith and thus deprive her of religious freedom, would Sen. Coats and Boyer relent and permit abortions virtually up until the time of birth?

I called Sen. Coats’ office today to ask which types of people Sen. Coats believes can be discriminated against in hiring or firing on the basis of his or someone else’s religious beliefs. I was curious to know if Sen. Coats thinks that a fundamentalist Mormon can refuse to hire African-Americans, whether a Jew can fire Christians for the use of graven images (or simply for eating pork and shellfish), whether a Christian-Scientist can refuse to hire someone who uses medicine or consults doctors (or fire someone who wants healthcare insurance), whether Hindus can fire those who aren’t vegetarians, whether different sects of Christianity (and Catholicism) can refuse to here one another because of their differing interpretations of Biblical texts and obligations, whether a Catholic can fire divorcees or refuse to hire single parents, or whether an evangelical Christian can refuse to hire or fire someone who doesn’t profess a belief that Jesus was the messiah. All of those would seem to implicate “religious freedom” as much or more than homosexuality, yet I believe that all are currently prohibited by existing law. And I haven’t heard Sen. Coats calling for repeal of the Civil Rights Act or similar legislation because of “religious freedom” — at least not yet.

Of course, in reality, what you do generally has no impact whatsoever upon my religious freedom, let alone my right to freely exercise my religion, so long as you don’t prevent me from believing what I choose or directly impacting my religious activities in my house or house of worship (and note that there is a distinction between governmental establishment of religion and free exercise thereof). I think that there is an enormous difference between a religious organization (think a church or parochial school) having the right to require its clergy or teachers to act in accordance with its faith and imposing the same requirements upon secretaries, nurses, janitors, or those in similar roles. When we get to institutions like hospitals or universities, the link between religion and the acts or beliefs of employees seems even more tenuous. And don’t get me started on the recent notion that businesses (like Hobby Lobby) have religious beliefs that are “infringed” by things like the birth control mandate. But, for the record, it is also worth noting that ENDA includes a specific exemption for faith-based organizations.

Anyway, to put all of this into context a bit, think about this passage from Leviticus 24:16:

anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

Or maybe you’d prefer Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods”(gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Would anyone seriously argue that a law that prevents people from killing someone who “blasphemes” or proselytizes qualifies as an improper infringement upon either the “religious freedom” or even “free exercise” of religion? No? I didn’t think so. Yet it would also seem that laws that prevent people from acting upon these Biblical commandments have a far greater impact upon true Biblical observance and so-called “religious freedom” than allowing gays to marry or stopping a business from rejecting a prospective employee because of who she sleeps with. I don’t know about you, but I would certainly have to think that someone who takes the Bible seriously, would be far more worried about those who blaspheme or proselytize for “other gods” than about gay men.**

Permitting marriage equality doesn’t impact Boyer’s ability to believe whatever she wants or to offer whatever prayer gives her comfort. Her worship won’t change and she won’t be required to divorce her husband and marry another woman; nor will she be required to teach her children that marriage equality is “right” (even if it is the law) any more than she is presently obligated to divorce her husband and marry an African-American man or a Buddhist or to teach her children that the Bible isn’t the verbatim truth and that Santa isn’t real.

Similarly, telling a business that it can’t refuse to hire a lesbian solely on the basis of her sexuality or fire a transgendered individual solely on the basis of his gender identity doesn’t impact the right of the business owner to believe either than homosexuality is bad or that being transgendered is … well, I’m not sure what the Bible or religious belief is supposed to say about gender identity. That business owner can try to “pray away the gay” or think whatever he or she wants. It’s no different than the right of that business owner to be a racist bigot or to hate Jews and Muslims or to think that Catholics and Mormons aren’t “true Christians” … all of those rights are preserved in the law at the same time that we tell that business owner that, whatever he may believe, he can’t allow those beliefs to be used to discriminate against others with regard to employment. Laws like ENDA won’t stop anyone, including Boyer or Sen. Coats, from standing on a street corner and yelling to passersby that homosexuality is wrong, an abomination, or that gays will go to Hell. That’s what Westboro Baptist Church does daily. All laws like ENDA will do is expand protection in the hiring and firing process to homosexuals and the transgendered similar to the protections presently afforded on the basis of race, national origin, religion, creed, and disability.

The world is changing. People are growing more tolerant of those who look and think differently than they do. Unfortunately, there is still a significant portion of the population that fears change and, more importantly, fears (or even loathes) those who are different. And they’ll use every argument that they can think of, stoke ever fire of fear, in order to prevent the change and recognition of equality that they see coming. But that change will come and those who think like Sen. Coats and Boyer will be left behind with those who still think that the universe revolves around the Earth, demons cause disease, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

---

*I may come back to Boyer’s blog post in the future to talk about some of her other arguments against marriage equality, including her claim of “gay bullying”, her fear-mongering that churches might be required to perform same-sex marriages, and her use of other countries to examine what might happen in America without bothering to note that those other countries don’t have the freedoms of religion expressed in our First Amendment and do have official state churches. And I really want to to tackle her effort to distinguish miscegenation laws from marriage equality: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping men and women apart. The marriage amendment is about keeping men and women together in marriage. Children need a mom and a dad regardless of their race.” But that is for another day. In the meantime, laugh all you want.

**I say “gay men” because the Biblical passage against homosexuality is limited to male-male sex and says nothing about lesbians enjoying themselves. Leviticus 20:13:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

So query also whether laws that allow gay men to avoid the death penalty also infringe upon the “religious freedom” of true believers. For that matter, why isn’t Boyer demanding the right to stone gays to death so that she is observing Biblical commandments?

---

Updated to fix (hopefully) the video link and to correct another link.

One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on Another Comment

Back in April 2013, I posted One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Powerful Gun Control PSAs from Moms Demand Action, one of my numerous recent posts on guns and gun control. That post has been one of the most widely viewed posts that I’ve ever written (and it continues to receive a large number of views from readers outside of the United States). You may remember the post because of the three remarkable images:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A week or so after that post was published, I took some time to look at one of the comments written in response: One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment. Well, today I want to spend a little time looking at another comment thread to the post. I think that the comments are illustrative of several problems, hence my decision to share and discuss them. Please remember, that I do not edit or moderate comments (except that I delete comments that are obviously spam).

About a month after the post was published, a user identified as “leon” (clicking on the link takes you to a page about “opaque” [i.e., anonymous] users) posted the following comment (misspellings in original):

this is a terrible awful and moronic excuse. if he kids where to put the gun down and tell it to shoot, the guns wouldnt do ANYTHGIN! statistics show that of all the ways people are getting killed, its people with basball bats that are doing most of the killing. that is proven by reports from the FBI and the CIA why not ban THOSE?! “baseball bats” this whole crappy thing about guns killing people is just all bull-crap! guns dont kill people PEOPLE kill people WITH guns!

Did you note the obvious fallacy in the comment? Just days before the comment was posted, I’d heard a similar argument, recognized the fallacy, and looked it up. Thus, when leon left his post, I was ready and responded just about an hour later:

Leon:

Thanks so much for taking the time to regurgitate bogus right-wing, pro-gun talking points. Before repeating your statistic, did you even, you know, stop a think? Baseball bats “are doing most of the killing”? Does that even sound plausible? Of course not. Because it’s simply not true.

Here’s what Snopes has to say about this meme that has been in use by pro-gun advocates:

In any debate about gun control in the U.S., someone will inevitably make the argument that “[X] kills more people than guns do” (where [X] is anything from automobiles to scissors to sharks), with the implication that gun control advocates are too narrowly focused on one issue while ignoring other, greater threats to public safety.

One common form of this argument which is often invoked after a prominent incident brings the subject of gun control to the forefront of public discussion (such as the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut) is the claim that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms, an assertion typically cited as a truism which is borne out by FBI statistics.

However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim. The Uniform Crime Reports made available on the Crime in the U.S. section of the FBI's web site includes homicide data that breaks down killings by the types of weapons used. In 2011, the percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

The FBI doesn’t offer data showing the latter categories broken down into more detail, so it isn't possible to determine from this source exactly what percentage of homicides in 2011 involved the use of baseball bats. But even if one were to assume that every single homicide in the “blunt objects” category was committed with a baseball bat (almost certainly a very large overestimate), firearm-related homicides would still outnumber bat-related homicides by a ratio of more than sixteen to one.

Next time, Leon, try doing a little reseach [sic] first.

Not surprisingly, neither leon nor any other gun rights advocate responded … until last week, when a comment was left by staplehead3 (an apparently anonymous user on Google+ who uses a cross for an avatar); I don’t know if leon and staplehead3 are one and the same (though I have my suspicions…):

Lol “Next time, Leon, try doing a little reseach first.” you may want to take your own advice. I looked at the website you linked and I cannot figure out from which orifice in your body that you pulled those stats from. You are trying to skew statistics in your favor just because you know you can’t win without doing so.

Well, you know me. I couldn’t help responding to staplehead3 (in my comment, a link didn’t display properly; I’ve corrected that below):

I’m not sure how hard it is to do a little research. The table that I included in my comment was copied verbatim from the Snopes article that I linked to. But if that isn’t good enough, you can look at that link for homicide data from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8). If you look in the top row of the far right column (I’m trying to make this easy for you…), you will see that there were 12,664 homicides in 2011. In the row just below that, you’ll see that of those homicides, 8,583 were committed with a firearm (the rows below that break down the type of firearm). If you divide 8,583 by 12,664, you’ll get 67.8% which just happens to be the number that Snopes used. If you then look down a few rows, you’ll see a row labeled “Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)”. I presume that baseball bats are included in this row as “clubs”. Anyway, if you once again look across that row to the last column, you'll see that in 2011, there were 496 homicides committed with blunt objects. Dividing 496 by 12,664 gives us 3.9%, once again the same number quoted by Snopes.

Now, I recognize that you probably don’t want to accept the FBI crime data as authoritative. So let’s try this: Provide me with concrete empirical evidence from a legitimate data source that shows “of all the ways people are getting killed, its people with basball bats that are doing most of the killing” (those were your words on May 17). You also alleged that your claim “is proven by reports from the FBI and the CIA”. So please provide me the links to those reports proving that “people with baseball bats … are doing most of the killing”. Take your time. I’ll wait.

I wanted to include the following graphic in my response comment, but apparently Blogger doesn’t allow images in comments:

That is a screenshot that I took of the FBI crime statistics page — the very same page linked to in the Snopes article that I quoted in my first response. I added the red circles to make it that much easier for the statistics to be understood. Also, if you’re interested in the 2012 data (the table above and the data quoted in the Snopes article is from 2011), that information is also available on the FBI’s crime statistics pages. And to nobody’s surprise, the 2012 data shows that, similar to 2011, 69% of homicides were committed with firearms while only 4% were committed with blunt objects (like baseball bats). In fact, since 2007, the highest percentage of homicides by blunt instrument was just over 4½% in 2009.

So, no, “people with basball [sic] bats” are absolutely not “doing most of the killing”. One final point on the statistics themselves: It occurred to me when I was writing this post that the FBI crime statistics deal only with crime; that is, the statistics do not include accidents that were not ruled to be homicides. And I think it’s safe to say (though I’m sure leon and staplehead3 would object) that far, far more people are the victims of accidental shootings than accidental bludgeoning by baseball bats.

With those facts in mind, query a few things:

• How is it that the meme that leon repeated, that baseball bats rather than guns are responsible for most homicides, is so easily accepted as true and then regurgitated without even applying any common sense thought to the idiocy of the claim?
• How is that staplehead3 could look at any of those links that I provided and not find the relevant data, concluding instead that I had pulled the statistics from a bodily orifice and skewed them (and did I make up the stats or skew them … I’m not clear on that accusation)?
• Why are those on the right (and I’m going to presume that both leon and staplehead3 are on the right given the positions that they’ve expressed) are so, seemingly, allergic to statistics and can only comprehend statistics that demonstrate a truth with which they disagree if they tell themselves that they numbers have been “skewed” (recall the claims from the right before the 2012 election that polling data showing President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney must have been skewed)?
• Why can’t people use comment threads like these to engage in civil discussion and dialogue without name calling?

I don’t have answers to these questions. I do suspect that cognitive dissonance plays some role; that is to say that some people are so tied to and invested with their particular worldview and understanding of how things should be, that data and evidence to the contrary must be wrong. After all, it’s much easier to say “the data is wrong” than to admit that you were wrong or, even worse, re-think your positions. Similarly, I think that may also explain the easy spread of the baseball bat meme. Those who harbor strong pro-gun views may be shocked by mass killings like that at Sandy Hook, and so need an outlet or a scapegoat for their own concerns. Thus, if there is someone or something that can be blamed instead of easy access to guns or the ease by which guns can kill multiple people, then misplacing that blame allows the true “villains” of the story (i.e., guns and the easy access to guns) to be left off of the proverbial hook.

The discussion of whether “guns kill people” is an interesting discussion. It’s a discussion worth having. Dialogue about whether additional gun control laws are needed is worth having. Dialogue about crime in America and keeping our children safe is worth having. But, as I say in reference to so many other things, we can’t have that dialogue if we can’t first agree on basic facts. When people are willing (with a degree of vitriol, no less) to spew obviously bogus “factual” talking points or are able to look at hard statistics compiled by what should be unimpeachable authorities and not comprehend what they’re looking at (or conclude that the statistics are “skewed”), then we’ve reached a point where common sense, meaningful dialogue is, essentially, impossible.

Some of us live in a reality-based world where logic and empirical evidence have value. But too many people have left reality behind, no longer trust empirical evidence, cannot fathom simple logic or rationale arguments, and seek, instead, to try to warp reality to fit into the fantasy that they’ve created for themselves. The question is whether we are going to let them drag us, our country, and our world down that rabbit hole with them … or whether thinking people will say “enough is enough” and try to reclaim the importance of truth as a basis upon which reality exists.

The Healthcare.gov Website Is Only a Component of Obamacare; Problems With the Website Don’t Mean that “Obamacare Is a Failure”

Ever since the federal government’s Healthcare.gov site went online on October 1, we’ve heard about problems that people are having accessing the site. The sorts of problems being described are inexcusable; there is no reason that the website couldn’t have been designed properly and tested thoroughly before going “live” on October 1. To paraphrase an old cliché: “If we can put a man on the moon…”.

However, there is one thing that is absolutely critical to note about the problems with Healthcare.gov: The website is not Obamacare! Rather, Healthcare.gov is the tool designed to implement one component of Obamacare. But as with so many other things related to the Affordable Care Act, those who oppose it have continued their pattern of lying about the law in order to stoke public fear and anger. So, I found myself feeling the need to remind people what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) does, the point of the Healthcare.gov insurance exchanges, and why problems with the website are not evidence of a “failure of Obamacare”.

First, as opponents of the ACA like to remind us, the bill that was passed into law was a thousand plus pages. Ooh, scary. But the point is that the law includes many, many provisions other than the exchanges. Provisions which are designed to, you know, help people. For example:

• The Affordable Care Act provides that insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with implementation of this prohibition.
• The Affordable Care Act provides that young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance plan until they are 26. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with implementation of this requirement.
• The Affordable Care Act provides that insurance companies cannot cap insurance benefits with lifetime caps. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with implementation of this prohibition.
• The Affordable Care Act provides that insurance companies cannot terminate coverage when a beneficiary becomes ill. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to with implementation of this prohibition.
• The Affordable Care Act provides that insurance companies must include certain preventive treatment and screenings (such as mammograms) within insurance coverage and without payment of a co-pay or deductible. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with implementation of these requirements.
• The Affordable Care Act provides that insurance companies that spend too much of the income earned from premiums on costs other than payment of benefits must provide a refund to those that they insure. Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with implementation of these requirements.
• The Affordable Care Act gives states the ability to expand Medicaid rolls dramatically, with the cost of that expansion being paid 100% by the federal government for several years (after which the federal government will pay 90% of that cost). Problems with Healthcare.gov have nothing to do with the decision of some states (like Indiana) to refuse to expand Medicaid.

Get the idea?

But there’s actually much, much more at work here, too.

One of the memes that we hear repeatedly from those who oppose Obamacare goes something like this: “If Obamacare [or the exchanges] are so good, why doesn’t ______ [insert “President Obama” or “Congress” or the name of any other public official] get insurance through Obamacare?” The problem is that this criticism completely ignores the very purpose of the exchanges. The Healthcare.gov insurance exchange (or the exchanges operated by the states; more on that in a minute…) aren’t intended to replace existing employer-provided healthcare; rather, the exchanges are designed to provide affordable access to health insurance to those who don’t have employer-provided care and who previously could not afford to purchase individual coverage. Due to economies of scale and increased bargaining power, employers (especially large employers) have been able to get coverage for employees at much less expensive rates than most individuals could obtain when shopping for just themselves or their families. Think of it as the difference between buying wholesale versus retail.

The purpose of the exchanges was to provide a “one stop shopping” site for those seeking to purchase insurance and, due to the nature of the exchange, to use market forces to drive down premiums. Where one individual couldn’t negotiate a lower price from an individual insurer, the hope is that hundreds of thousands (or millions) of shoppers choosing between plans that must provide certain benefit levels will be able to act as a giant group for which the insurance companies will lower premiums when in active and evident competition with one another. In other words, the exchanges exist, not to provide insurance to those receiving it from their employer, but to help the millions of uninsured Americans access affordable health insurance. And the US government, like most other large employers, provides health insurance for its employees. So there is no reason for President Obama or Congress to give up what they have an purchase insurance on an exchange; they are not the intended recipients of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

Don’t forget that a critical component of Obamacare is to provide subsidies to allow people to purchase health insurance. So when you hear discussion of what premiums may be for insurance coverage purchased through an exchange, be sure that the premium number that you are hearing includes the calculation of any available subsidy. If the subsidy isn’t included in the discussion, then you’re not really comparing proverbial apples.

There is something else that is critical to remember about the purpose and functioning of the exchanges. Recall that the Affordable Care Act gave states the right to set up their own exchanges. Some did. California, New York, and especially Kentucky (in addition to other states) set up their own exchanges and, by all accounts, are having a quite successful implementation of the exchanges in their states. But many states, like Indiana, chose not to create their own exchanges and, rather, elected to allow the federal government to be responsible for the exchanges for their states. Thus, Indiana could have set up an exchange; it could have been specifically tailored to the needs of Hoosiers. Perhaps it would have functioned as well as the exchange that Kentucky created. But the federal government had to create an exchange for all of the states that didn’t set up their own exchange. Hmm. I wonder which is more difficult: An exchange for a single state or an exchange for dozens of states, each with different insurers?

And let’s not forget that the Republicans made every effort to stop the implementation of Obamacare. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court had ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in 2012. Can’t you hear the screams of outrage from Republicans if the Obama administration had spent significant sums of money creating the exchanges or website for a law that was declared unconstitutional. Similarly, if Mitt Romney had won in 2012 and followed through with his promise to repeal Obamacare, there would have been similar screams of outrage from Republicans about money spent toward the implementation of Obamacare. Keep this in mind when you hear Republicans talking about the administration having three years to create the exchanges. Not really.

I also want to touch briefly on some of the really bad analogies that have been drawn with regard to the rollout of Healthcare.gov and the suggestion that it is a sign of the failure of Obamacare. I’ve seen the rollout compared to the Iraq war and to the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Heck, in response to one of my posts on Twitter, someone made the comparison to a nuclear attack on the United States: “The current #Obamacare situation is more like someone programmed our launch codes wrong & enemy missiles will B here in 5”. Seriously. Let me offer the following response: The failure of a website, designed to allow people to purchase health insurance is not akin to a war or to a failed government response to a natural disaster that led to the deaths of thousands. And it certainly is not analogous to a nuclear missile strike. But those are the analogies that opponents of Obamacare have to stoop to in order to continue their efforts to mislead and frighten.

Think of it this way: We didn’t abandon space exploration when three astronauts died in a fire on Apollo 1; we didn’t surrender to the Confederacy after losing the first few battles of the Civil War; and most importantly, we didn’t abandon President Bush’s Medicare Part D program when its initial rollout was plagued with problems. But those programs weren’t the signature legislative achievement of President Obama. A Democrat. A black Democrat.

I think that the problems with Healthcare.gov are terrible and I don’t know how the system could have been designed and implemented so poorly. But Healthcare.gov is not Obamcare. It is merely a component of Obamacare; it is a component of Obamacare that will be fixed (maybe soon, maybe not, but it will be fixed). In the meantime, all of the other components of Obamacare are functioning and are helping people. And even the exchanges are working in states that adopted their own (and at the federal level for those who choose to register via phone or paper, apparently). One problem in one part of the law does not evidence that the entire law is a failure.

But don’t let truth stand in the way of a good scare tactic; after all, Halloween is just a few days away.

If you hear someone tell you that “Obamacare is a failure”, tell them why they’re wrong. And tell them why. See how they respond.

The Right’s Reaction to a Republican’s Vote to Avoid Default

Since being elected in November 2012, Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN) has voted with her Republican colleagues in the House 96.8% of the time. In fact, she is ranked as the 10th “most Republican” member of the House caucus. Rep. Brooks votes with her Republican colleagues 2.6% more often than the average Republican. And just a few weeks ago, Rep. Brooks generated some controversy when she used her franking privileges to send her constituents a flyer touting her opposition to Obamacare and her efforts to repeal it. So, I think that it’s fair to say, by any objective measure, that Rep. Brooks is a “real Republican”.

But then, last week, after supporting the government shutdown and efforts to defund Obamacare, Rep. Brooks chose to act the part of a sane, responsible representative, and voted to end the shutdown and prevent a default of US government obligations. And, on the basis of that one vote, she is now viewed by many of her constituents as a traitor, liar, or RINO (Republican in Name Only) and will likely be challenged from even further to the right.

Shortly after casting her vote, Rep. Brooks posted the following statement about her vote in favor of ending the government shutdown and preventing a default (emphasis in original):

Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks (R-IN) released the following statement after voting in favor of legislation to prevent default and open the goverment [sic]:

“I believe surpassing the debt ceiling would harm Hoosier families, adversely affect the stock market and damage America’s position on the global stage. Default puts Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments at risk and could trigger another downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. I did not come to Congress to perpetuate this type of uncertainty. Governing is about making responsible choices. I believe voting to prevent a default on our debt and open our government is the responsible choice.

I remain committed to reducing our national debt and protecting Americans from the President’s failed healthcare law. The bill I voted for today gets us closer to accomplishing these goals by requiring bicameral budget negotiations, preserving Budget Control Act (BCA) spending cuts and ensuring income verification will be enforced for individuals receiving Obamacare subsidies.

This plan is far from perfect but it achieves meaningful progress by requiring budget negotiations to begin in earnest, giving us a real opportunity to put our country on a path to fiscal stability. Both sides must now come together to fix our broken budget process, eliminate wasteful spending, increase efficiency and lower our $16.7 trillion national debt. Senator Reid and his colleagues must come to the table ready to admit the status quo is no longer acceptable.”

The legislation funds the government through January 15, 2014 at the $986 billion level established through the BCA and suspends the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014. It forces the President to verify income levels of Obamacare participants, a provision of the law the Administration previously decided not to enforce which will save an estimated $250 billion in fraudulent payments. It also sets up bicameral budget negotiations that must conclude by December 13. The measure passed the House this evening.

She also posted the statement on her Facebook page. Unfortunately, a review of the 282 comments posted to Facebook (as of about noon on October 21) shows just how far out of touch the Tea Party is (both with the rest of America and, perhaps, with reality). Read these comments and note a few things: (a) how often President Obama is referred to as a Marxist, Socialist, dictator, or some similar title; (b) how often Rep. Brooks is referred to as a traitor, of having committed treason, or of having “sold out” Indiana or America; (c) how frequently comments claim that a default wouldn’t actually be, you know, a default; (d) how often Rep. Brooks is accused of lying; and (e) how infrequently those who supported a “no” vote (that would have led to a default) offer any sort of explanation or way out of the situation (beyond a generic “cut spending”). I’ve highlighted a few of my “favorite” comments in red.

Emma Baumann You caved & are a coward! (4 likes)

Michelle Wall Very disappointed :( (4 likes)

Judy Sergent Cline Traitor....hope Garrison grills your ass next time you are on his show. Hope you enjoy your short lived time in DC, cause you will be ousted in the next election. (2 likes)

Carolyn Potts Padget Kantz I am very saddened and disappointed in your vote. We have to stop this insanity at some point. Things are only going to get worse. I am truly at a loss of words. I have always respected you greatly and what you have done. I have felt like I represented in the past, but not now. Harry Reid wins, yet again. Deeply disappointed. (3 likes)

James M. Graham You've let us all down. You and your cohorts. Do NOT expect to get my vote next time. (4 likes)

Mary Rogers Lady...you are a sorry piece of work. WRONG vote. (3 likes)

Mary Lou Winters I'm sorry you and the other republicans caved. I think you were all wrong. (4 likes)

Rick Miller It's a shame you chose to vote just like every other Democrat who is supporting this President. (3 likes)

Michael Fields I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in you. I had such hope that you would stand for what is right instead of everyday politics. I really thought you would be different. (5 likes)

Jodi Campbell Herd Very disappointed. Especially since I campaigned for you. Hopefully a better candidate will run against you in the primaries. (4 likes)

Dan Girt I am sorry that you decided to vote with the socialist. I guess you are moving to the left and maybe it is time to move on to a new more consevative rep. (5 likes)

Peggy Christel Khoury You need to be more like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul & Mike Lee. So do it@ (4 likes)

Steve Thom You caved, and I can no longer support you. I will work to make sure you don't survive the next primary election. You, madam Congresswoman, will be a one-term wonder: we'll wonder why we ever voted for you in the first place. There would have been no default. That's bogus. The Treasury takes in almost three times the amount of money required to service the debt each month, so unless Obama was willing to unlawfully order the Treasury not to pay the interest on the debt, there would have been no default, only the inability to borrow additional new money. Say all the right-sounding things you want, but your actions have spoken louder than your words. You have not represented your constituent's wishes and beliefs, and you will be held accountable. (8 likes)

Eric Basas Taylor Very disappointed....yet another Indiana Congressman who chose the path of least resistance & failed to put the people of Indiana first. (8 likes)

Roger Robinson Another traitor! (6 likes)

Barbara Moore You lost my confidence and my vote. (5 likes)

Jonathan Tharp Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks, can you please explain to me why the republican party put us through all of the drama for the past two weeks if the outcome was only to give the democrats more power and weaken the republicans position of support for the american people? (8 likes)

James Gregory Thomas The GOP must be willing to actually suffer, at least in the short run, for having done the RIGHT thing. So much of what goes on in Washington reminds me of the betrayal scene of William Wallace in "Braveheart". The brave and bold are abandoned by the craven and greedy. Rep. Brooks, I'm not saying you're either of the latter, but you need to strive to be more of the former. There are other battles coming up. Be on the right side of history with your votes, even if your political career isn't. (4 likes)

Justin Krowel Now she needs to be challenged! Hard decision to leave your principles to do the easy thing! (5 likes)

Ted Andrews I' very disappointed with you on this vote. Lets fast forward to January and another debt ceiling fight. Obama and the Dems WILL NOT compromise or negotiate. You will compromise everything, just like tonight. Don't you see the pattern?? (2 likes)

Dawn McNally McGrath Beyond disappointed with your vote. There's no excuse for you siding with an out of control government. I will not vote for you in the next election. (3 likes)

Larry Downes I'm extremely disappointed. Don't count on any support from me going forward. (2 likes)

Mark Sassman Sr Good luck next election, you have outright lied by stating there was going to be a default. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would have forced a balanced budget that you can only give lip service to. Have you considered the consequences of what the additional debt will bring? (2 likes)

Gardner Matthew You are a disgrace (3 likes)

Shawn Ybd I am glad I moved, and you no longer represent me in Congress. (2 likes)

Jim Morgan Sure you do, I so miss Dan Burton it was great having a real conservative who I knew I could count on always. (4 likes)

Michael L Smith You call yourself Conservative? That is a funny joke, at least now we know who needs Primary opponent as they FAILED to do as those you Represent wished. Chalk you and Senator Coats up to being in the same class as John McCain, aka part of the Reason America is being destroyed, has the debt it does, and the Constitution meaning littler and litter everyday. I hope you're happy with yourself. Makes perfect sense to me to take over a huge portion of the GDP when we're in debt to our ears. Way to set an example for younger generations on how to manage money, the wrong example. (2 likes)

Mike McHone Sorry Mrs. Brooks, you let your fellow Hoosiers down. And I'm sorry I voted for you. Next item up you'll be voting on a bill to grant over 11 millions illegal immigrants amnesty. But then again over 22 millions Americans unemployed what is another 11 millions. (3 likes)

Henrietta Lea Willis You're a flat out liar! How about the lowest increase in Social Security in years? But you still get paid after you leave office? Why? We could save a lot of money getting permenently rid of the financial burden of paying reps after they retire ! Just wait until next election. (3 likes)

Ronald B. Carrell Disappointed. Your vote did not represent me. Should my vote in November 2014 represent you? (6 likes)

Cindi Davis Kiner Very disappointed. And it seems like I'm in the majority here! If I were you, I would be very worried about the next election. (1 like)

Janice O'Hern Deeply disappointed....I expected more from you (1 like)

Sherry McEntee Butler Just lost my 2014 vote (1 like)

Mike Pohl So how will you vote the next time the Dems refuse to engage? "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" (4 likes)

Betsy Johnson Harvey You must take us for fools. We know better. Don't get too comfortable, you'll be home sooner rather than later. (4 likes)

Mary Heath It would have been Obama's choice to default and according to the constitution, he is not allowed to default. I also heard that the reason that we could have been downgraded was because Obama was threatening a default. We bring in enough money to pay the interest on our national debt. Just how does Obama plan to verify income on Obamacare? I don't believe a single word he says. He has lied too many times. Sorry I don't believe a single word about how "we must come together to fix our broken budget Process, etc.... This government has no conccens about not wasting taxpayers money. This government is so corrupt and Marxist and not enough people in Congress has the guts to stop it! (4 likes)

Mary Heath Republicans who voted to go along with this insane spending, only care about fitting in with the establishment and being invited to their social events. (2 likes)

William Pedigo Ralph Butler conservatives did not fold. Republicans rather so called Republicans folded. Too many people still don't relize that the the Republican patry has been hijacked by Progressives in disguise. They call themselves Moderates, and some call them the Establishment Republicans, those of us true Conservatives call them Sellouts and Spineless. If this crap hasn't proven the point that Conservatives, Constitutionalist, Libertarians, and Independents who believe in having a small federal government that exercises fiscal discipline snd responsibility need to come together and form a third party. As Conservative Constitution Defending Americans we must realize the Republican National Committee by latge part do not represent the way we believe. If you doubt that just look at who the members of that committee are and who they keep supporting to run for office. (2 likes)

[Note: The previous posts and their “likes” were as of about 2:00pm on October 18; the following posts and their “likes” were as of about 1:00pm on October 21.]

Ken Marshall Turncoat (1 like)

Carolyn Harvey Lundberg Pathetic. (1 like)

Michelle Wall I can't support you anymore.... (2 likes)

Tony Azcona I don't care about your statement. You voted against Hoosiers. You deserve to lose your office in the next election....and it will happen. If you vote like a RINO, you are no better than a Democrat. (4 likes)

Arlan Landey Before this vote, you were only 70% compliant with the Constitution which you swore to uphold and protect. How do you look yourself in the mirror each morning knowing that you have breached your oath and continue to vote against the values of those who elected you? You have lost my vote forever. You are not to be entrusted with the office you hold. (3 likes)

Amy Herman Shame on you for caving. Plenty of monthly income to pay our debt. Obamacare is a farce. I hope your on it just as you have imposed it on Americans. This may have been our final stand. Shame on you. (2 likes)

Mike Flanery Disappointed (2 likes)

Micah Mitchell Highly disappointed in the lack of backbone ultimately shown by so many Republicans! This effectively showed the President that he can get anything he wants & never negotiate with you, because you will just negotiate against each other. He effectively took over the budget process tonight, and will do so from now on. Also, I can't believe you joined the "default" talk. Actual default could NOT have happened unless Obama violated the Constitution (Article I & the 14th Amendment, Section 4) more brazenly than ever & Chose not to pay our actual obligations, which only require about 10% of the monthly tax intake. That's how he wins! He simply lies over & over until, first the media, and eventually Republicans start repeating & believing it. Disgusting & disheartening... (8 likes)

Edward McIlwain Susan, I am very disappointed in your vote tonight to increase the size and scope of the federal government, and to continue the "pork-barrel" policies of the past that we elected you to help end. I understand the Republican members of the House, yourself included, were placed in an untenable position, but I cannot believe that you represented the feelings of our district well with your support of the president's bill. There wasn't even any discussion or attempt to remove the $2B payoff to Sen. McConnell in the House! There is no possible way to defend this! The threat of default is a false premise, and we all know it. The tax on medical devices does serious harm to Hoosier companies and their employees. The requirement of financial proof of eligibility for obamacare subsidies is already law. None of the provisions of this bill that you helped pass will benefit Hoosiers or America, in fact it will hurt us all! Susan, you are still my Republican Congresswoman, and I will continue to support you, but I cannot help but think that the time and effort, the blood sweat and tears that I have expended in the effort to elect conservative representation to the House in Indiana's Fifth District has been for naught. I cannot imagine that men of the caliber of Bud Hillis or Steve Buyer, or Danny Burton would have supported the Senate bill, and I am very, very sorry that you felt it necessary to do so! (5 likes)

Brent Silveus Good for you honey. I hope tbey vote you out ASAP. (4 likes)

Terry Schuck Bull hockey, it never goes away in Washington D.C. It has gotten too deep for the landfills to take it. Indeed, it seems D.C. is the landfill for the stuff. (1 like)

Peter Langfield Extremely disappointed. At least Mitch McConnell got an earmark appropriation for his treasonous vote. Not voting Republican again.... it's time for a third party. (3 likes)

Kenny DevilDoc Williams You not only sold out Indiana but betrayed America I will not be voting for you or any other Republican in 2014. If the Republican party is going to roll over and give the Democrats everything, every time we might as well vote a straight Democratic Ticket come 2014 & 2016. At least then maybe something, ANYTHING will get done in Washington for a change..... You DISGUST ME,,,, WORDS CAN NOT CONVERY THE BETRAYAL THRUST UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (5 likes)

Richard Buyme Way to go, siding with Democrats to kick the can down the road for the 82nd time! Get ready to get voted out next election. (4 likes)

Coffee Trader We miss Dan Burton already! (4 likes)

Coffee Trader What's so hard about 'voting' for spending cuts? Another long winded line of BS that makes your vote look even worse! It's not like we're asking you to freeze & starve all winter at Valley Forge like George Washington and his troops! (5 likes)

Andrew Moore You just ceded you constitutional power of the purse to the executive. Now all the executive has to do is refuse to negotiate and threaten default and he then can make Congress do his bidding. Your vote helps accelerates the transformation from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy with power consolidated in the executive branch. (4 likes)

Coffee Trader Glad I voted for David McIntosh in the 2012 primary. (1 like)

Jim Herr Very weak (2 likes)

Parker King Nice job explaining your submission to the monarchists. Once again in our history, liberty is a minority movement. (3 likes)

Keith Barber You state now that you did not come to Congress to perpetuate this kind of uncertainty, but for the last several weeks you have done precisely that. You are treating your constituents like idiots with your effort to have your cake and eat it too. Well, we will be idiots if we reelect you. (3 likes)

Scott Pearce You voted against indiana...I will no longer support you (3 likes)

Doug Duell While I may not live in your district I am close enough to maybe help whoever is brought in to run against you in the next election. Shame on you. (4 likes)

John Toennies I will work to primary you as well. America lost tonight. (3 likes)

Jon Sparks Default is such a lie. By law we have to pay our debt...just means we have to cut this out of control government! Luckily for us 2014 is coming and you lost my support. (4 likes)

Kate Tanguy Herr Typical politician! Thanks for raising our debt!!! (2 likes)

Dave Dawson You statement is full of lies and inaccuracies. You have become worthless and irrelevant. Per the Constitution we must pay our bills. Try reading it. There was no shutdown. Non-essential personnel is not a shutdown. There never was going to be a default, unless you planned on joining the list of criminals that were going to cause the default. You are now part of the problem. You are a Progressive and are pandering to the Marxists. You are giving aid to the enemy. Please step down now and let us find a true American that love this country to take your place. I did not vote for you the in the primaries and if you run again, I will not vote for you in the election, should you get that far. (1 like)

Dave Dawson Yes, I would rather have an honest Marxist than a lying traitor represent me. (1 like)

Pam James I can't believe your traitors vote.You are a coward.you do not care about your constituents at all.you are OUT! (2 likes)

Jerry Peyton Until all of Washington realizes we have a spending problem we are headed down a nasty trail and the American people are stuck with commitments established by congress and the president that they do not want! (1 like)

David Giffel It's like when your child is a drug addict.. you continue to buy them drugs so they cannot feel pain during the withdrawals. Susan, you are an enabler. (2 likes)

Gail E. Trammell I disagree with your vote. We are just one step closer to financial collapse! (2 likes)

Jacque Bick Beck Disappointing. (1 like)

Kate Tanguy Herr Ms. Brooks. Your job plain and simple is to be a voice for the 5th district of Indiana. After reading the comments it looks as if your vote does not represent your constituents. You took it upon yourself to vote the way YOU felt. How YOU wanted, not as a OUR voice. YOU violated your oath to our district and to the constitution. My question is why vote yay? Why not vote nay? You would have saved face and represented what your district wants! This just shows us you will do whatever DC wants and not what Hoosiers want. (2 likes)

David Giffel "The measure also approves back pay for all federal workers".. Nice vacation for the Federal workers. (2 likes)

Gail E. Trammell I am disappointed that you voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling! Sorry that you caved! (1 like)

Mike Mahoney What has happened is that the President was handed the one power in Article I that was meant for situations such as this. I was pretty sure this would be the play acting all along. Since you and the rest of the House have decided that you don't know how or need to use the powers the people granted to the House of Representatives for exactly a time such as this, I believe it is shown to be time to find representatives who do. (2 likes)

Mike Mahoney Oh, one other important message. Don't bother trying to rally this troop with messaging. I hear your excellent messaging. I see your total inability to follow through. Promises in the future will fall on deaf ears. The promise of 2010 has been broken. Never again. (1 like)

Gary Hayes Brooks has cooked her goose for me as well as many others, no way I would ever vote for this Rino. I am betting she will never win another election. (1 like)

Randy Fox So we trade one bad scenario for another possibly worse scenario. Meanwhile the healthcare mandate rolls on. It is unfortunate that we have been sold out by our leaders. People should remember to vote and remember how your current leaders handled this situation. (1 like)

Mel Arnold What you do speaks so loudly that I can't hear a word you are saying. You just voted to give a lawless administration more power and embolden them to take what little freedom we still have left as you belly up to the public pocketbooks. You lost two supporters in this household! (4 likes)

Toasted Oats I hope you enjoy your one term as my representative, and your lifetime pension. One question though, what did you get for selling out? I mean in the senate Mitch McConnell got 3 billion for his state. At least tell me you milked something for your district? (2 likes)

Pat Bledsoe Yes you are one of the biggest problems you sold that's out (3 likes)

Kristi Morrison The "Tea Party" has nothing to do with this. It is something trolls interject into any thread to try to discredit the truth for people who have no idea. Ms Brooks had stated she was for the people in her district and America, and then she backed out. O controls the intimidation tactics such as cutting off food stamps or blocking off monuments. Congress does not stand up and make it stop. If Congress and Senate will not stop him it is a dictatorship. (7 likes)

Chuck Dulla you and your kind are the problem, not the solution. like always, you kicked the can down the road again for another couple of months. i'm looking forward to donating to anyone that primaries you. shame..... (3 likes)

Brent Coleman Your party did such a poor job of communicating the situation to the people. You allowed the media outlets to spew falsehoods over and over. You didn't mention the 1200 waivers Obama issued to the ACA or the 19 delays issued to the ACA or the over 40 missed regulatory deadlines. You could have stood up for the working guy and pushed on to get him the same delay granted to big business. You could have pointed out that there is adequate money flowing into the government to pay our governments obligations. There was no need to panic and buy into the default talk. There would have been some prioritizing needed but that is why you have the big staff and make the big money. You allowed the Dems and the media to govern the discussions. We could have been OK with eliminating waivers entirely. But no, your party went along and we the people lost. (3 likes)

Aaron Longdon You caved! It is time for Speaker Boehner to go. There would have been no default unless Obama chose it. There is plenty of revenue to service the debt. Your vote to raise the debt ceiling IS POLITICS AS USUAL! I live in your district and I am very disappointed along with LOTS of others. (4 likes)

Jon McPheron you are a socialist! quit now and save the embarrassing defeat later (1 like)

Troy McClain There was never going to be a default. This is not political cover. You had an opportunity to stand with Hoosiers and vote against this, yet you committed political suicide.
The last time we increased the debt ceiling we had a credit downgrade as a result. How can uncontrolled spending be spun as anything beneficial? You have also now handed Obama even greater power essentially bypassing Congress on further increases in the debt ceiling.
Your vote was a betrayal to all of us. Enjoy what is left of your term. (4 likes)

James Andrew Browning does it really matter if we defaulted or not? you say you voted this to keep social security and everything else from getting hurt, maybe im wrong but if goverment keeps spending and spending getting us even more in debt will it not get hurt anyways? and our future generations be worse off than us now? And please tell me how in the hell obama care is going to help the american people you and every other damn political figure out there is out for themselfs you all act is if you care about the people but reality is tour there for yourselves!

Ty King you've just lost my vote... (5 likes)

Del Garcia DISAPPOINTED! (5 likes)

Larry Shaw You just proved you have chosen a long career in DC rather than representing the Hoosier state. You lost my vote!!! (7 likes)

Libby Cyman So disappointed will never vote for you again! (6 likes)

Tim Miller Yopur carrer may be shortened (3 likes)

Andrew Moore Thanks for voting yourself a generous Obamacare subsidy while your constituents won't get the same treatment. (8 likes)

Leonora Hammer Starr Hope you enjoy your first and last term in office ... keep kicking this rusty old can down the road ... your grandkids will just love you for it! INDIANA (7 likes)

Don Gartner Very disappointed in your vote. You have just moved the problem down the road. Nothing was solved!! You will do the same thing in the next round. The Dems will play the same game and you will fall for it again. This gov't is in sad shape and we have no leadership from either party!!!!!!!! (5 likes)

Michael Foster So then, bow down like the rest of them. We the people would rather endure the hard times in order to beat this tyrant. So now we look elsewhere for our help. (2 likes)

George Hagan III Boo congress woman. Your failure to stand on principal is appalling. You should be ashamed siding with the dems (2 likes)

Brian Durant I Voted Yes, giving in to the Liberals because I was more afraid of
not getting re-elected, than I was of the people I represent and helping them overcome Obamacare. I know that now the people will have to suffer, but I've got my Healthcare intact, subsidized, and was afraid to fight any further because the "Establishment" GOP members told me they wouldn't help me if I didn't give in. The media put us on the block, and the people believed them, but we didn't know how to fight that. We did get a promise to verify all enrollees in Obamacare, but we know that won't be done, they'll do what they do at the border. And they said they'll now talk with us, I think??? (4 likes)

Bill McLin while I am of the belief that the Obama administration relished this debacle, your view that you moved things forward, is just wrong. Someone needs to stand up and be willing to go down for the count, which the Tea Party was willing to do. Tea Party caucus is here to stay. I even agree with some of their stands, but realistic compromise has to happen. Seemed to me this was a pure "show" (2 likes)

Aaron Alberts Come on Susan, we voted for a conservative voice, but it turns out we got a RINO. You lost my vote, you might as well join the Democrats now you closeted Obama supporter (5 likes)

Je'Amour P. Matthew "I am a Democrat" and I am sadden and sicken you sold out to this Totalitarian Dictator and his Hench men, there is no more Republican and Democratic Party, just two different wings on the same vulture, you all have proven you will sell your soul to the special interest that has greased your palms, I am an American, I am a Patriot, I am a defender of the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and I have awaken … (2 likes)

Charles Spidell You caved. Have fun in the next Primary. (4 likes)

Joe Jekel You have lost my vote - you are just another sell out. I will never support you again. Sorry you made this decision. (4 likes)

Ed Owens I'm voter in your district, have donated money to your campaign,can no longer back u since u sold out to our dictator president (4 likes)

Aimee Nelson Ransom We the people are fed up and pissed off!! (3 likes)

Scott Rulong I want to know how your vote squares with the desires of your constituents. You were not elected to *govern* us but to *represent* us. (5 likes)

Debra Kerlin Skinner Disappointed in you, Rep. Brooks. (4 likes)

Josie Ryan Congrats to federal workers who got a RAISE in the sellout deal Rep Brooks voted for. (2 likes)

Andrew Moore At least five of the seven GOP representatives in Indiana rejected this sell-out, pork-laden bill. Primaries are in May 2014. It may be time to seek new representation. (5 likes)

Julie Shonk You did not help anything. Your explainations do not make people continue to believe in you. Your actions for the people would have. You are a sad excuse for a human being. :( (2 likes)

Josie Ryan Its time Andrew Moore.. for sure. Her first term and she already sold out? Good grief.. you would think she wouldnt have forgotten the people back home so quick. (3 likes)

Tom Canavan Another RINO. We need to do our homework long before the next primary and weed 'em all out. Get these rotten apples out before they spoil the whole barrel. (4 likes)

Jack Griffin I see you bring a sizable amount of law experience to your current position. Unfortunately, it is obvious you are well-versed in sophistry. I find it most regrettable that your background in the areas of history, leadership, finance, and mathematics are nonexistent. God save the Republic! (3 likes)

Jim Hornaday Traitor! i was really in support of you and THOUGHT you had a spine. Caved in just like all the rest! You wont get my vote again! (3 likes)

Linda Hedden White Wrong vote. Not my representative anymore! (2 likes)

Terry Voorhees This isn't why I voted for you. So disappointed (4 likes)

Darin Pratt Rep. Brooks, the only way we would default and not pay Medicare and SS is if the administration CHOSE not to pay the debt (violating the 14th amendment) and CHOSE not to pay Medicare and SS for political games. We bring in $250 BILLION/month in revenue, the payment on the debt is $20 BILLION/month. We bring in over 10 X the amount we need to pay the debt therefore, NOT A DEFAULT! (3 likes)

Scotty LeCoq When does it stop Susan? You caved and you need to go. (1 like)

Brian Jessen Disappointed. You said you were different. (3 likes)

Jerry Calandrilla Loser! Time to vote you out! We sure need term limits for politicians that are wishy washy kinda like you are! (1 like)

John Nelson Bye Susan, its been real. (4 likes)

Rick Brown thanks for selling out fellow hoosiers. hope you lose your re-election bid. (3 likes)

Greg Augustinovicz that's a nice letter in an attempt to justify your vote. so, WHEN WILL YOU STAND AND FIGHT?!?!? (2 likes)

Richard Payne This is typical of all you politicians. You sell out the people that voted for you and try and justify it with a flimsy letter. Let's face the facts, you simply sold out your loyalty to your voters. (2 likes)

Jim Morgan I am getting fed up with the Republicans acting as concubines for the Democrats. (7 likes)

Jim Herbert You should have voted NAY. I have tried three times for an hour each time to register for ObamaCare so I can compare the cost with my current coverage. I still have not been able to get registered...not even allowed to create a username! What will happen when I decide not to have coverage because of the lost HCTC benefit and the lack of ability to register for ObamaCare? I will have to pay a penalty for the STUPIDITY of this law that is illegal and immoral. The constitution does not say TAX THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T BUY INSURANCE! (2 likes)

Kc Harpe you are pathetic...you're just like McCain and Graham. you gave obama everything he wanted, without him giving us ANYTHING. did the executive branch threaten the congress? cuz you all caved and gave them everything they wanted like it was your job. you are NOT a real patriot like Senator Ted Cruzi, Senator Rand Paul, or Mike Lee. hope you are aware that you WILL NOT be in the House after the next election cycle. you disgrace the people you represent.

Michael Barker don't even talk to us people who had faith! you and young and carson are all against the american people!! (1 like)

Troy Gordon The vote did nothing but give up the leverage you had. The country will be in the same position in three months time, but this time around you may not have the support of the people because we will expect you to cave to the Socialists. Good luck. If you de-fund the Health Care Act, you may still have my vote. Anything short of that and my vote goes elsewhere.

Humberto DeLuca Typical RINO. Watch her vote for adding another 30M new Dems voters (amnesty).

Jason L. Crace Very disappointed in my Representative. Her vote today only weakened her party, weakened her party's future negotiating power, and probably screwed the party's chance to take over the Senate in 2014. Now, we might even lose the House. Ms. Brooks, you put YOUR POLITICAL CAREER before the principles you declared to preserve and the stance that needed to be taken. Why do you elected officials in D.C. continue to give this man a blank check and the opportunity to bypass Congress on spending. DO you realize that our POTUS has not presented a budget in 5 years?!?!? He is doing that intentionally so he can continue to write checks that our great-grandkids will cover so that he can implement all of his social policiies and platform with NO CHECKS AND BALANCES from Congress. Pathetic, truly pathetic. The "stock market" should NEVER come before the long-term viability of our country and the debt we seem to keep accepting. You have become the status-quo for elected officials. You will not be receiving my vote in 2014. (1 like)

Nancy Quick Scheuermann You are my representative, and I believed you would stand strong for conservative principles. I am VERY disappointed. (1 like)

Jenny Oldham You caved, Susan...I will reconsider my vote during the next election. (1 like)

Coffee Trader $24 Billion lost due to the Shut down? If so, it's ample proof that our Gov't is way too BIG! Thus, a No Vote would've been the only acceptable vote! (1 like)

Cheree Cher What happened to the demand for a "clean" bill, huh? You voted to give federal workers a RAISE plus Sen. McConnell got a Kentucky kickback of $3 billion for a DAM project. (2 likes)

Rebecca Phillippi I am totally disappointed. There is no excuse for the way you voted.

Cheree Cher Forgive me but how stupid or corrupt do you have to be to vote for McConnell's plan to neuter Congress and hand the power of the purse over to the imperial Executive Branch? You will be remembered for this. And that's not a compliment!

Kathy Marie An abject failure! I hoped for more from you.

Jeff Kostro I see next on the Obama agenda, is Amnesty for the millions of Illegal Aliens. This is linked to the ACA in a way not many have put together yet. The ACA does not cover Illegal Aliens. Now Obama Is calling for immigration reform, and wants to give 12 million illegals Amnesty. You may be wondering is "Why does this matter?" Well, illegal aliens do not have to purchase insurance, they are not effected by the Individual Mandate, but they will get Medicaid, further burdening that program. Also, Illegal Aliens could legally enter the workforce, but since the ACA exempts this group, companies DO NOT have to offer them healthcare. Do you realize the saving this will give them? 12 million people entering the American Workforce, and companies have an incentive to hire them, leaving American Citizens Unemployed. Please stand Against this and protect Hoosiers

Whoa. Deep breaths. Deep, cleansing breaths.

I’m not going to take the time to debunk the myriad falsehoods or ridiculous exaggerations found in these comments. But please recognize that people really feel this way; they really believe the things that they say. These comments were posted under these people’s real names (well, mostly, I suspect), not anonymously. And these people will vote and they will vote on the basis of anger and of conspiracy theories and a failure to understand, recognize, or accept reality.

These are the voices that many “Republicans” will be listening to as the primaries approach in 2014 (I put Republicans in quotation marks because it isn’t all that clear that Republicans and the Tea Party are the same anymore). Would you be comfortable with elected representatives beholden to people who think and feel similar to those who expressed their outrage to Rep. Brooks? If not, then remember that come the primaries and general election in 2014, it is incumbent upon you to do something. Because if we allow those who would call Rep. Brooks a traitor or RINO to elect people who are even further to the right, then I have grave fears that we won’t recognize our country much longer.