Skip to content

Mississippi Democrats: Reps. Palazzo and Monsour ‘Too Stupid To Serve’

April 22, 2010
tags: Alex Monsour, healthcare, Mississippi Democrats, Steven Palazzo
by Brett

In light of an initiative being proposed by Representatives Alex Monsour and Steven Palazzo to prohibit mandatory participation in any health insurance plan, the Mississippi Democrats took to their blog to declare those two Representatives ‘too stupid to serve.’

According to Sam Hall, they both need to resign from the legislature now and Palazzo needs to end his run for Congress (against a Democrat who opposed healthcare mind you).

As we know, Americans don’t like the healthcare bill and want it repealed- we can only figure an even stronger majority in Mississippi agree (as we have shown using current polling and 2008 exit polls). So if this initiative were to make the ballot- and pass (which it would if it was on the ballot today)- will the Mississippi Democrats declare all voters stupid?

I still continue to be shocked at the level of support for this bill from the state party. There is a reason that two of three Democrats in the Congressional delegation voted against the bill. Yet the Mississippi Democrats continue to bring it up- and praise it while denouncing anyone who opposes it.

In other name-calling news, Hall called Alan Nunnelee “fiscally stupid” because he doesn’t want to drain the state’s reserves that we are going to need for at least the next few years.

The Mississippi Democrats have done a lot of good things in terms of Internet presence and social media. That said, it seems like they have done it at the expense of being hijacked by the left.

26 Comments leave one →
  1. Gary permalink
    April 22, 2010 9:22 am

    Amazing. When the Dems can’t come up with a coherent counter-argument, they pop the childish, “Your just too stupid”. Spoken like a party out of ideas and ready to be tossed out. Thank you, maroons.

  2. Sam Hall permalink
    April 22, 2010 9:44 am

    This is what I wrote:

    If these guys are too ignorant to know that federal law supercedes state law and therefore their Constitutional amendment would be worthless then they need to resign from the Legislature and let someone with half their wits about them serve the people of their respective districts.

    I think we can both agree, Brett, that this Constitutional amendment is far more about getting some press (not to mention names, numbers and email addresses) for Palazzo’s Congressional race than it is about a *serious* challenge to the health care reform package.

    If, however, Palazzo does consider this a serious challenge to health care reform, then I would reference my above quoted statement.

  3. princess sophia permalink
    April 22, 2010 10:27 am

    One comment regarding this 10th amendment. Federal law does not supercede squat.

    • Sam Hall permalink
      April 22, 2010 10:52 am

      That is what the lawsuit Gov. Barbour and others across the nation are saying, but there is ample federal precedent that says otherwise. Only two or three cases have ever successfully used the 10th Amendment argument to strike down all or part of a federal law. (Admittedly, they are all fairly recent cases.)

      That said, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other similar federally mandated, created or (at least) financially matched programs have been repeatedly tested in federal court with 10th Amendment challenges. All have failed.

      I won’t presume the outcome of the federal case being brought against the recent health insurance reform, but I hope it does fail. Not just because I’m a supporter of health care reform, but because the ramifications could be disastrous to our nation and to our state, especially when you consider the amount of federal funding Mississippi needs just to survive.

      If you strip away federal funds from Mississippi, we could not survive. That’s what many are essentially espousing today, an end to federally funded social programs. We’re playing a very dangerous game of politics over a single issue, the results of which could have far-reaching, devastating, unintended consequences.

      • Gary permalink
        April 22, 2010 11:26 am

        If that be the case, then we should NOT survive. Actually we would; Just on a different level. I have never believed that you should force someone from another state to subsidize the my lifestyle.

      • JackCUDA permalink
        April 22, 2010 4:07 pm

        I won’t presume the outcome of the federal case being brought against the recent health insurance reform …

        Play ignorant with your voters, if you must, but your entire argument and attacks on Palazzo+Monsour are based on your presumption that the federal case will be unsuccessful.

        If the measure qualifies it will pass.

  4. RandomThoughts permalink
    April 22, 2010 11:31 am

    Princess, have you read the constitution? Might I suggest you examine Article VI which provides:

    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;”

    All federal laws trumph all state laws/constitutional provisions that are contrary. That is precisely why DEA agents can still arrest distributors in California that distribute medical marijuana. California has made medical marijuana legal but Federal Laws still make marijuana illegal.

    The Tenth Amendment in this case is meaningless. As long as the Supreme Court sticks with its interpretation of the commerce clause (BTW that includes Scalia) then the health care bill will be a valid exercise of legislative power through the commerce clause, and any Tenth Amendment argument is moot.

  5. RandomThoughts permalink
    April 22, 2010 11:45 am

    Gary are the conservatives/republicans/tea partiers also a party out of ideas as they feel the need to equate every democrat with communist dictators?

    • Gary permalink
      April 22, 2010 2:32 pm

      Random, YOU mentioned communist, etc. I didn’t. Freudian slip?

      • RandomThoughts permalink
        April 26, 2010 6:10 pm

        Yes I mentioned communist, I guess you couldn’t follow my point.

        My point is you criticize liberals that name call when they can’t come with a coherent counter argument (a valid point which I agree with). But do you also criticize republicans/tea partiers/conservatives who name call democrats communists, socialists etc. instead of coming up with a coherent counter argument? Or do you support a double standard?

        The juvenile name calling and fear mongering which has been popularized by the likes of Hannity and others on the Right and Olberman and others on the Left needs to stop as it does nothing to benefit the country.

  6. Peacemaker permalink
    April 22, 2010 12:03 pm

    Sam Federal Law does supercede State law as you state but only when it has authority. I can not find anything in the Constitution about the Federal Government being able to force citizens to buy a particular product of any kind. The only area that even seems close is the commerce clause and that one is a stretch. Thus princess sophia is exactly right. This is about the 10th amendment. While it is certainly peacock season (read election time) it is still a cheap shot to call names when your argument is as weak as those you disagree with.

    You make one point worthy of study in my opinion and that is “…We’re playing a very dangerous game…” you described this issue as a gateway to stiping away federal funds and asserted that Mississippi could not survive without them. I disagree. I believe our State could survive, be competitive, and thrive, but we would have to change some major habits. It would certainly not be easy because we would need actual thinkers in Jackson not feelers.

    If Mississippi could not “survive” as you believe then perhaps it shouldn’t. A state that cannot carry its own weight should not be a State in my opinion. We can and will if we take the opportunity. It is my hope that this issue (healthcare) continues to provoke discussions about the role of the Federal Government and its relationship with the States. We should question its expansion as a centralized and controlling body and its growth beyond its Constitutional boundaries. We live in the United STATES of America, not the United STATE of America. I for one believe the diversity of our States makes us stronger as a nation. To streamline them into simple geographic regions and blanket the country with unicode federal laws makes us different from the former Soviet Union how exactly?

    • INDEPNMS permalink
      April 22, 2010 4:35 pm

      Bravo Peacemaker! Many of our Democrat friends in the state legislature do not realize that one of the goals of the current federal “over-reach” is control of the states and that includes even them as democrat state legislators! Please see my post at #8

  7. bill ford permalink
    April 22, 2010 12:49 pm

    Correction for the debate in Southaven. This was given by Tea Party of Mississippi located a 2156 State Line Rd, Southaven, Mississippi, not the Mississippi Tea Party.

    • Tea Party Leader II permalink
      April 22, 2010 3:22 pm


      I saw on Nunnelee’s FEC contributions that the Tea Party of Mississippi donated to his campaign. Even had the Southaven address. I thought Tea Party’s could/would not endorce candidates? Aren’t you a non-profit organization?

  8. INDEPNMS permalink
    April 22, 2010 3:41 pm

    My fellow Mississippians: One underlying factor concerning the “health care” debate that we appear to be having here is the issue of a push down of an unfunded mandates. Once the initial federal “outlays” have been expended it will by and large be the responsibility of Mississippi to “foot the bill.” Try to curtail a program that has been pushed and instituted as a “God given right”. Mississippi is already struggling to meet essentials service and to balance its budget(as mandated by the state Constitution). As for providing health care for Missippians without, this could have been done by reforming Medicaid and Medicare and providing adequate funding, doctor reimbursement and tort reform. The reason it was not done in this manner is because simple to the point reforms do not provide the federal government the control over state governments that is desired by our current administration. Democrats, least you be deceived, this means more control of even you. I wonder will either party be able to govern our state effectively when they are going to be reduced to mere order takers of the federal government, which appears to be the case in short order. Democrats and Republicans of the Mississippi legislature, represent Mississippi! Listen to the people of your districts and stop listening to Washington. Why settle for the crums of the federal government when you could be one of the legislators who helps guide our state to greatness? In closing, The constitutional footing of the federal “health care” legislation has not yet been proven. Mississippi has the right to protect the interest of her citzens by constitutional amendment,joint state law suit, or if we citizens so dare by a voter lead initiative. Please lead us to greatness and not settle for the dictates of medocracy.

  9. RandomThoughts permalink
    April 22, 2010 4:26 pm

    INDEPNMS: You appear to have drunk the kool-aid that the high cost of health care is related to lawsuits. For that I have two questions for you.

    1. In 2003 & 2004 Governors Musgrove and Barbour signed into law medical malpractice tort reform bills which greatly limited the recovery for individual severely injured due to medical negligence. Since 2003 have you seen your health insurance premiums increase or decrease?

    2. Also in 2004 Governor Barbour signed into law a tort reform bill which caps the pain and suffering damages recoverable in all cases. So if you have a 10 year old daughter who gets run over by a Walmart truck and is a parapaligent for the rest of her life she can only get $1 million for her pain and suffereing/loss of enjoyment of life. Really fair system. But I have the same question for you, have your car insurance premiums increased or decreased since 2004?

    If tort reform lowers the cost of insurance the answer for both of these questions should be your premiums have decreased. As for myself, I have lived in 4 states in my life so far and I paid higher health insurance premiums in Mississippi than anywhere else, and SIGNFICANTLY higher auto insurance premiums – this despite the fact I have never been in a accident that was my fault and have no tickets.

    Tort reform in any form does not make insurance cheaper for you. It makes insurance companies more profitable at the expense of those people who are most severely hurt by the fault of others. Talk about a government giveaway the Governor gave away our rights if someone else harms us and what did we get in return? Nothing.

    • INDEPNMS permalink
      April 22, 2010 4:55 pm

      Random Thoughts: I believe that you should consider the entire posting instead of running of in a “random thought” on one point. I apologize if your interpretation was specific to Mississippi. Tort reform is appled in the net negative multiplier of economic effect on businesses(or persons) who have to face frivilous lawsuits(not suits which clearly have merit). I am not or have I ever said tort reform is the single instrument in lowering health care cost. I can guarantee you though that what has been pushed upon us in the name of “health care” will cause cost to rise. Economics has absolute principles unlike those who seek control under the guise of being so compassionate. Please before you make another single point comment look at the overall message of the comment. Drink Liberty not Kool aid my friend. I’m sorry if you have suffered a personal loss which may have triggered your response.

  10. RandomThoughts permalink
    April 22, 2010 6:09 pm

    I only point out your argument’s weakness so that you can refine and make your argument stronger. While I may disagree with some of your other points they have more of a basis then your agrument for tort reform. When ever I hear a person say the answer to the high cost of health care is tort reform I immediately know they do not understand what they are talking about in that regard. Limiting an individual’s recovery that has been injured through the fault of others does nothing to deter “frivilous” lawsuits. Limiting the recovery of the injured harms those people who have been injured most severely.

    For example, in Mississippi the malpractice cap on pain and suffering is $500,000. So compare these two patients: Patient one is an 70 year old woman who through admittedly negligent care develops an ulcer on her big toe and must have it amputated. Other than the removal of her big toe she recovers fully. On the other hand patient two is a 15 year old boy who following a routine surgery is negligently given an overdose of morphine and slips into a coma. The boy recovers from the coma but now suffers brain damage and will never be able to live an independent life, will never marry, and will never have his own children.

    Both cases go to trial. The jury awards patient 1 $75,000 for her lost toe and pain and suffering from the surgery to remove the toe. In the case of the young boy the jury is sympathetic to what the boy and the boy’s parents have lost and what they will suffer through the rest of his life. The jury awards the family $6 million for pain and suffering. The verdict is divided up to $4 million for the boy and $1 million apiece for the parents, that verdict is then slashed to $500,000.

    Explain to me how those facts deter filing frivilous lawsuits? You can’t because they don’t. Liability caps only effect those people who are most severely injured. Both cases are meritorious and yet it is the person who we can all agree who suffered the most who is harmed by these laws yet again.

    I don’t understand why people who are such adament supporters of our consitutional rights when it comes to the Tenth Amendment don’t seem to give a rip about the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution and the 31st amendment to the Mississippi constitution which protect our right to a jury.

    I can assure you liability caps do not deter frivilous law suits.

  11. RandomThoughts permalink
    April 22, 2010 6:13 pm

    Once more thought:

    The republican/conservative/tea party battle cry over the solemn nature of the Tenth Amendment is lost when they argue the need for federal medical malpractice tort reform. Shouldn’t the tea partiers be up in arms about the FEDERAL government telling the STATE judiciaries system what rules apply in STATE court.

  12. Individual Liberty permalink
    April 24, 2010 5:36 pm

    Can Gene Taylor be counted as one of the votes in Congress needed to repeal Pelosicare?

    Last time I checked, Gene refuses to answer that question.

  13. Gary permalink
    April 24, 2010 7:44 pm

    Pelosi didn’t need Taylor’s vote; she told him to shut up about it and he obediently did so. He doesn’t have the courage of his words. He has lost his soul and should be retired.

  14. honesthank permalink
    April 26, 2010 3:52 pm

    Brett you and Gray are the ones that are to stupid to be Americans if you really knew the Constitution you would not be making statements like that. One of you show me where in the Constitution it tell you that the Fed. Gov. over rules the States Constitution. Also show me in the Constitution Obama has the right to pass any law make any one buy any thing from the Gov. Also show me in the Constituiton where the Gov. has the right to own Private Co. They talk about someone trying to do something. You liberals have to have someone help you out of bed show you how to get to your bathroom then how to use it as all liberals. Why do people like you hate America? And our way of life. Show me where the Gov. owe you anything. Show me where the Gov. owe you Health Care. Show me where the Gov. should feed you. Show me where the Gov. owe you a living. You stupid ******** can’t do that. Try getting a life with out the Gov. One of your liberals said this but you never hear of anyone of them using it anymore for all of you liberals are cowards. JFK Don’t ask what your Gov. can do for you but what you can do for your Gov. how soon you liberals forget.

  15. honesthank permalink
    April 26, 2010 4:00 pm

    Gary not you it was on another page earlier. I know you. I was talking to you. this one is for you. Gene Taylor voted for the Health Care Bill before voting no. This is how he did it. When the bill came out of Committee there is a yes and no. A yes vote allows it to go forward for a vote to go into law. A no vote kills the bill. Gene Taylor pulled a John Kerry vote yes to allow it to go forward that is a vote for the kill American don’t care bill (Obama’s so called Health Care Bill) he could have voted no that would have help kill the bill. It was a close vote. So when he tell people he vote no he is a lair.

  16. honesthank permalink
    April 26, 2010 4:29 pm

    I am sorry Brett and Gary I saw that it was by you. I ment it to Sam Hall.

  17. Gary permalink
    April 26, 2010 5:25 pm

    honesthank; That’s ok. I think we need to put this on a spread sheet to keep track.

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS