For The Love Of Buck
Posted on August 17, 2008 at 2:05 pmSome folks do not think Jennifer Buck Wallace, the (for the most part) volunteer Obama for President coordinator here in Tennessee, is getting sufficient props for her efforts on behalf of the cause:
Jennifer Buck Wallace has been working voluntarily with zero financial compensation since May, 2007 (except for a couple of months during the Primary season) to harness the enthusiasm of TN Obama volunteers and channel them to the appropriate areas according to their skills, experience, time allowances etc. She has also overseen countless events, conducted key meetings and compiled multiple recourses targeted to the statewide campaign volunteers. Due to her calm determination, ObamaTN has resulted in an incredibly successful grassroots (unofficial) presence statewide and especially in the metro areas of Davidson, Shelby, Knox and Hamilton Counties. Wallace has even gone beyond the metro areas to engage leaders to organize rural areas that are viewed in this cycle to be red. Without her leadership, ObamaTN would merely be a shadow of what it is.
The acceptance and execution of civil duty that Wallace exhibits should serve as not only an example, but also as a clear path to enter for all residents of the United States to be engaged in our country’s future. She serves as a role model to us all – reminding us of the unique character and governmental structure of America – that every single person matters and every single person’s contribution of their civic duty is necessary to the innovative evolution of this nation. Indeed, Tennessee is unusually fortunate to have such a leader within it’s border.
Comments
20 Responses to “For The Love Of Buck”
Tennessee will Not go for Obama!
Yes, Mickey you are right on the most base level, but no Mickey you don’t understand the point of the article at all. Obama has 1800 volunteers in Knox County to McCain’s 200–that boosts civic engagement, helps down-ticket state legislative races, and makes people feel a part of that wider national presidential campaign. Even as Tennessee’s electoral votes, and definitely Knox County’s votes, end up going to McSame, more people have rediscovered a “cause greater than their own self-interest” to quote McCain—and that cause is political change in Washington and reestablishing priorities that don’t involve shoveling govenment benefits to the top 1% and oil companies. So, No, its not about winning Tennessee, as much as it is winning one for the country.
The country will not win if obama is elected
I guess you prefer the 8 conservative years we’ve gone through?
Joe, I only WISH we had 8 conservative years. The GOP has dropped the conservatives decades ago. I do not prefer Obama or McCain. they are the same, more bigger government, less freedom. Been that way for years.
Mickey, if you want to live somewhere where there is little or no government, move to a deserted island in the Pacific where you can set your own rules and make your own laws.
There are 300+ million people in this country that HAVE to self-govern.
I just wished that Congress would stick to the 20 things that the Constitution says it can do. Nothing Else. I don’t want to makeup my own laws, Just want to use the ones we have, and no more.
So basically, you’re a libertarian?
Nope
Where do you part with the libertarians, then?
Abortion, Prostitution, Drugs, Gays
Are restrictions on any of those in the Constitution?
Life - antiabortion can be derived from the constitution. the other stuff should be left to the states. but libertarians at the state level would be for them and I am against them.
Where in the constitution, Mickey?
Amendment 5 …. no person…deprived of life…
So all the Congress has to do is Pass a bill declaring Life begins at conception, and restrict the Courts from reviewing anything to do with it.
That’s a restriction on the power of the government against individual rights, Mickey.
I would agree that there’s an argument to be made that the government can’t compel a women to have an abortion without due process of law. But that’s not what you’re advocating.
There’s a reason that the anti-abortion movement’s dream is a Constitutional amendment protecting the fetus: there isn’t a real constitutional argument against abortion outside the thoroughly exhausted discussion around the “penumbra” interpration of the 14th amendment providing a right to privacy that includes abortion.
A “strict constructionist” couldn’t reasonably find a constitutional case against abortion. That isn’t to say that Roe v Wade’s key rationale is ironclad. But the case to be made isn’t that the Constitution can be interpreted to protect the fetus, because it can’t. The case to be made is that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion, and in the absence of this right, legislators can pass laws prohibiting abortion.
That really isn’t much of a libertarian argument, but of course you aren’t a libertarian (though it should be noted that Ron Paul and the contemporary Libertarian Party are, hypocritically, against abortion). That said, your key point, that the Constitution forbids abortion based on the 5th Amendment, isn’t correct.
No it does not restrict individual rights, it ensures the unborn the Right To Life. That is what the 5th amendment means. It is life at conception, and the 5th protects the right to life. The 14th amendment does not state a right to privacy, you guys just make that stuff up.
Hey, I wouldn’t say that the 14th Amendment is a sound basis for overturning laws restricting abortion. But abortion rights are favored by a majority of the American people, and that would be sufficient to allow abortion by statute, unless the case could be made that the 5th amendment prohibited abortion based on the word “life.”
But the 5th amendment regulates the government, not individuals. That’s why I say that there could be a case made against government-mandated abortion, and maybe even government-funded abortion (though that’s tenuous), but not individual women’s decision to have an abortion.
You’re misinterpreting the scope of the 5th amendment if you think otherwise. Just as the first amendment doesn’t prevent a private shopping mall from banning solicitation, the fifth amendment would not restrict individuals, even if a fetus were considered a person. The question would be if a murder statute were applied to abortion, but that’s statutory, not constitutional, assuming Roe v Wade were overturned and no legislation replaced it.
It would take an constitutional amendment for abortion to be categorically prohibited. And that will never happen.
we are almost there…
if the bill is passed that states the fetus is a person and thus can not be denied life.. it is then a state’s issue. and even shopping malls do not allow murder.
oh, that was me being funny… states don’t allow murder (even at the mall)