Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $3,617
4%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 4% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by AuH2ORepublican

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Andrew Young weighs in on the Confederate flag debate

    07/03/2015 3:51:53 AM PDT · 21 of 25
    AuH2ORepublican to Protect the Bill of Rights

    Correction: From 1973-77, Andrew Young was in the *U.S.* House of Representatives (representing GA—his district was basically the city of Atlanta)..

  • The Most Radical Decision Ever?

    06/30/2015 5:54:53 PM PDT · 18 of 23
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; xzins; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; justiceseeker93; campaignPete R-CT

    Kind of hard to beat Scott v. Sanford or Roe v. Wade (BTW, Dred Scott was the first use of “substantive due process” by SCOTUS, and Roe was the discredited theory’s widest application, at least prior to Obergefell) in the amount of evil that led to it or that was caused by it, but I think that the most egregiously ridiculous SCOTUS case ever was Eisenstadt. Prior to Griswold, many states prohibited the use of contraception by anyone, but in Griswold the Court struck down Connecticut’s ban *as applied to married couples* because marriage was such a slecial institution and marital privacy was the most important thing in the wirld, etc. So some states that previously had banned birth control now limited their ban to unmarried people, who would not have that magical “marital privacy” interest that had forced the Warren Court to strike down CT’s law. So an unmarried couple sued, and SCOTUS declared that law unconstitutional as a denial of EQUAL PROTECTION for unmarried couples! The state that had been for ed by SCOTUS to permit married couples to use contraception now was deemed to be discriminating in favor of married couples and against unmarried couples when it limited its contraceptive ban to unmarried couples. You can’t make this shi’ite up. Look up the case, it’s called Eisenstadt, but I’m too lazy to look up its full name.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/30/2015 5:00:23 PM PDT · 202 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    I didn’t think that we would *need* an amendment at the time, but I certainly supported it just to make sure that liberal judges didn’t impose it via judicial fiat. But John McCain said that it wasn’t nevessary because we had DOMA. Unfortunately, I was right and he was wrong.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/30/2015 7:54:42 AM PDT · 200 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    As you may recall, I am a strong proponent of Congress using Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (which grants Congress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions” of the 14th Amendment) to legislate that the word “person” in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment includes human beings in any stage of gestation, which would in turn trigger protection under the Privileges or Immunities (if SCOTUS ever resucitates it), Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While it is possibly that courts would rule that Congress can’t use its Section 5 power if its effect is to abridge a “right” that the courts previously had created (i.e., the “right” to abortion), there certainly is a very strong argument that Congress has the authority to *expand* the persons to whom Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies. There also would be a good chance that even if only four SCOTUS justices agreed with Congress’s use of Section 5 in such case, that a fifth justice would rule that Congress would be allowed to pass such law pursuant to the Commerce Clause (as “regulation of the abortion industry, which affects commerce among the states”) or some other of its enumerated or implied powers (what’s good for the Obamacare goose is good for the pro-life gander).

    What you are proposing, on the other hand, is not plausible. Using Section 5 to deny the use of the DP and EP Clauses to matters involving marriage, or matters involving homosexual conduct certainly would be struck down by the courts. Matbe Congress could use Section 5 to legislate for prohibiting discrimination against persons who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, but that’s just about it.

    The legislative power that Congress did have was to approve something like DOMA (which denied federal recognition for same-sex “marriages” and prevented courts from forcing states to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states if such “marriages” would be illegal in such state), which it did, but out of which Kennedy made toilet paper for his own consumption.

    The other thing that Congress could have done, and still could do, is to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that either (i) declares that the legality or recognition of unions other than those composed of one man and one woman, or the granting of the rights or incidents of marriage to any group of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman, is reserved to each state acting through its state legislature or voters, and that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. federal law or treaty, or any state constitution may be interpreted to create any right to marriage or to the rights or incidents of marriage for groups of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman or (ii) declaring that marriage in the United States shall be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that no state, nor the federal government, may recognize or grant the rights or incidents of marriage, to any group of persons other than a married couple composed of one man and one woman.

    The second option would have been best, of course, but even back in 1998 or so it would have been difficult to obtain 2/3 in each house of Congress to send the amendment to the states. The first option surely would have been approved by Congress in the late 1990s and easily would have obtained ratification by state legislatures in 38 states, which would have resulted in same-sex “marriage” being legal only in states whose state legislature or voters approved it. Alas, we would not be able to get 2/3 of each house of Congress to approve the first option today, or in the foreseeable future (although I think that the 38-state-legislatures requirement would be doable).

    It would be far easier to elect a conservative Republican president that would nominate, and a Republican Senate that would confirm, a conservative judge to replace Ginsburg or Kennedy when they retire or die (which likely will occur within the next 8 years for one or both or them), and then have Obergefell overturned when a state marriage restriction goes back before SCOTUS.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/30/2015 6:27:20 AM PDT · 197 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; BillyBoy

    You’re right, DJ, Congress eliminated two seats to set the number of justices at 8 (after recently having increased them to 10); it was years later that Congress added a 9th seat to SCOTUS. But my point remains that Congress was not able to remove sitting justices from the Court merely by reducing the number of seats.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/29/2015 9:00:32 PM PDT · 191 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj

    If Congress reduces the number of seats to 7 (by overriding Obama’s veto, in your fantasy scenario), then the Court would stay at 9 (remember, they’re lifetime appointments) until someone retires or dies, and then would drop to 8 with no replacement named, and after the next death or retirement it would drop to 7 and stay there. So, basically, it would take power away from the next president to fill the next two vacancies in the Court, which is nowhere near as good as having the next Republican president fill the next few vacancies. The only time that has been done was after Lincoln was assassinated and Congress (which had a Republican supermajority) didn’t want his Democrat VP Andrew Johnson filling vacancies in the newly expanded 10-seat Court, so Congress reduced the number of Justices to 9 (overriding Johnson’s veto) and then the next time a justice retired the vacancybwent unfilled and the seat was eliminated.

  • Supreme Court Allows Use of Execution Drug

    06/29/2015 7:48:25 AM PDT · 13 of 58
    AuH2ORepublican to jonno

    No, Alito is (correctly) considered more conservative than Kennedy. The author’s use of the phrase “joined by the court’s four more conservative justices” was shoddy writing; he meant that Alito’s opinion had been joined by the other four justices that, along with Alito, comprise the Court’s “more conservative justices.”

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/29/2015 7:44:49 AM PDT · 189 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj

    Unfortunately, I was correct regarding all three remaining cases. (Well, it’s only unfortunate concerning the redistricting-commission case.)

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/27/2015 10:43:16 AM PDT · 182 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy

    There’s only one problem with your alternative history: Bush wanted Roberts as CJ all along. Had Roberts been confirmed as an AJ prior to Rehnquist’s death, Bush still would have nominated Roberts for CJ.

    As for why residents don’t nominate state supreme court justices to SCOTUS, one of the main reasons is that few prominent state supreme court justices are as young as prominent judges in the federal judiciary that end up in SCOTUS shortlists. That’s one of the problems with lifetime appointments for SCOTUS; presidents rarely name anyone 60 or older because the you ger the nominee the longer he’ll be on the Court. Personally, I support the constitutional amendment that has been discussed for several years (and that Rick Perry recently touted) to make SCOTUS tems last 18 years (with a vacancy every two years), which would eliminate the disincentive to nominating a 65-year-old to SCOTUS.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/27/2015 7:09:48 AM PDT · 178 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    There are three cases whose opinions have not been released, one from the February sitting (Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission), one from the March sitting (Utility Air, the EPA case) and one from the April sitting (Glossip, the lethal-injection case). http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/ As you can see a little lower at the linked page, for the sittings in which all opinions are out, each Justice has written one Opinion of the Court (when there were at least nine cases, of course) and no Justice has written more than two opinions per sitting. That’s by design, so that theworkload is divided equitably. (It is also why liberal Justices with very little seniority are assigned many of the 9-0 and 8-1 cases.)

    Because none of the majority opinions from the March sitting that have been released so far have been authored by Scalia, we know with 99% certainty that he wrote the Opinion of the Court for Utility Air. Could someone else have written it? Sure, if after the hearing there were five or more Justices—one of whom was Scalia—in favor of overturning the EPA rules, and Robets assigned Scalia (or, if Roberts was in the majority, Scalia assigned to himself) the opinion, but then one of two things happened: (i) enough Justices switched to uphold the regulations and Scalia’s majority opinion became a dissent or (ii) a majority still believes that the EPA rules should be struck down, but not enough Justices agree with the reasoning in Scalia’s opinion and thus Scalia’s opinion becomes a concurrence in the judgment (and a different opinion becomes the majority or plurality opinion). Tha first scenario is what occurred during the 2013 Obamacare case, where Roberts switched fairly late in the process; the second is what analysts believe (and I agree with them) happened in Keery v. Din in the February sitting, where Kennedy had been selected to write the Opinion of the Court for a 5-4 majority but only one other Justice signed on to hiis opinion, and then Scalia’s opinion, with two other Justices signing on, became the judgment of the Court.

    Which brings us to the February sitting. There were 9 cases in the sitting, and 8 decisions have been announced, with each of Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan being the authors of one majority opinion and Scalia being the author of two judgments of the Court (one of which was the plurality opinion in Kerry v. Din). Given that almost certainly each Justice was assigned initially the majority opinion for one case, and that two Justices (Kennedy and Ginsburg) have not authored any majority opinions for the cases during such sitting, all the evidence points to Kennedy initially having been assigned Kerry v. Din but having lost his majority (albeit not losing the judgment) and Ginsburg initialy being assigned the opinion in Arzona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Given Ginsburg knee-jerk liberalism and distespect for the Constitution’s text, I am fairly certain that she favors interlreting “legislature” as meaning “any authority authorized by the state” iwhen such term is used in the Constitution’s Elections Clause. If I am correct, then there were at least 5 Justices willing to allow the AZ Redistricting Commission to draw congressional district lines despite it not having been created by the state legislature. And, unless someone changed his (or her—HA!) mind since February or March (whenever tbe post-sitting conference was held), the AZ Legislature will lose its appeal. This really pisses me off.

    As for the lethal-injection case, there are several Justices that haven’t authored opinions from the April sitting (Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan), but I think tbat Alito wrote the opinion because I don’t think that tbere are five votes in SCOTUS to strike down the use of lethal injections in executions.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/27/2015 6:18:48 AM PDT · 176 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy; Impy; fieldmarshaldj

    To believe that the Rehnquist Court was more conservative (or less liberal) than the Roberts Court, one would have to judge Roberts to be more liberal than O’Connor, which is risible. As disappointing (or traitorous—choose your adjective) as Roberts has been in the two Obamacare cases and the California SSM case, O’Connor was far, far wiorse, clearly more liberal than Kennedy (who is *much* more liberal than Roberts).

    George W. Bush’s two SCOTUS appointments (Roberts and Alito, the latter of whom has been outstanding, with fewer unfortunate votes than Scalia or Thomas over the past few years) have been, as a whole, far better and much more conservative than were George H.W. Bush’s two appointments (the excellent Thomas and the execrable ultraliberal Souter) or Ronald Reagan’s three appointments (the outstanding Scalia, untrustworthy moderate Kennedy and liberal-to-moderate O’Connor. George W. Bush’s lower-court appointments also have proven to be excellent, better than his father’s and up there with President Reagan’s. George W. Bush had many flaws, but his record regarding judges was very good (even though he did, as you noted, luck into nominating him instead of the enigmatic lackey Harriet Miers).

  • Scott Walker calls for Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage

    06/26/2015 2:21:59 PM PDT · 81 of 103
    AuH2ORepublican to cincinnati65

    I think that there’s a good chance of it getting ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states (i.e., 38 states); where it would have very slim odds of success is in getting 2/3 of the House and Senate to approve the amendment and send it to the states in the first place.

    We could have gotten 2/3 of the House and Senate back in 1998 or so to adopt a Marriage Amendment banning judicially created same-sex marriage, but John McCain and some others said that it “wasn’t necessary” because we had DOMA. F’in morons.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 2:17:33 PM PDT · 152 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy; Impy; fieldmarshaldj

    Had Bork or Douglas Ginsburg been confirmed, it is possible that Kennedy would have ended up on the Court anyhow—when Brennan retired and Bush 41 ended up picking Souter (who retired young and was replaced by Sotomayor). Had that occurred, Kennedy still would be around, but would be the fourth vote for liberals (or 6th vote for conservatives), and Robers would be the 5th vote. That would mean no Obamacare (Kennedy voted to strike it down, and it likely would have been struck down 6-3 since Roberts wouldn’t have wasted his time on his “tax” rewriting) just to have it struck down 5-4 instead of 6-3), and both laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman and laws prohibiting abortion would have beeb upheld. Thanks, Arlen Specter.

    BTW, remember that lawsuit brought by the Arizona GOP Legislature to declare unconstitutional the state’s redistricting commission that had not been created by the legislature? I was very bullish on the legislature’s chance of success at SCOTUS, but sadly I now must predict that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will write the Opinion of the Court in that case, and that it will declare that when Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution says that the “times, places and manner of holding elections for ... Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof” the word “legislature” means “the legislature plus any commission created by the voters via referendum against the wishes of the legislature.” Because, you know, the word “legislature” is “vague.”

    The reason why I’m almost certain that Ginsburg will write the opinion is because she has not written any opinions from the February sitting, and the only other Justice not to have authored a majority opinion from that sitting (Kennedy) almost certainly had been assigned the opinion in Kerry v. Din but couldn’t get the other 4 to sign on to his opinion (which is why the case had a fractured majority, with Scalia writing for 3 Justices and Kennedy writing for 2 and concurring in the judgment). This really sucks; I was hoping for a big victory for conservatives in the AZ case that could lead to future victories getting rid of FL’s retarded “fair districts” constitutional amendment.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 10:47:05 AM PDT · 133 of 203
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    The liberals didn’t “let” Kennedy write the opinion; as the most senior of the 5, he got to de ide who would write it.

  • “Ask the nearest hippie”: The conservative SCOTUS justices’ opinions on marriage..

    06/26/2015 9:23:49 AM PDT · 14 of 25
    AuH2ORepublican to Cincinatus' Wife

    “”A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.” Rick Perry’s Good Idea”


    Rick Perry didn’t think of that constitutional amendment (I read about it years ago and have been advocating it ever since), but I’m glad that he supports it and will speak out in favor of it.

  • Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Lon Johnson resigning to run for Congress

    06/25/2015 3:30:07 PM PDT · 8 of 10
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; Darren McCarty; fieldmarshaldj; cripplecreek; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; ...

    “Johnson, 44, has a home in Kalkaska with his wife, Juliana Smoot, a Democratic fundraiser who served as deputy manager for President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

    He ran for the state House out of Kalkaska in 2012 but lost to incumbent Republican Rep. Bruce Rendon by around 2,500 votes. He’s raised his profile considerably since that time, however.”


    This Johnson fellow won’t beat Benishek unless Benishek *really* messes up. Yes, the MI-01 was uncomfortably close in 2012, but it still is a conservative distirct (particularly on sociaal issues). And like 45% or so of the district’s voters live in the Upper Peninsula, and Yoopers won’t vote for someone from Kalkaska against a Yooper like Benishek. In fact, the RATs already ran someone from Kalkaska (a retired general and former county sheriff no less) in 2014 and Benishek won by 7%.

  • [Rep. Jeff] Miller to Announce Bid for Rubio’s Senate Seat

    06/25/2015 2:28:42 PM PDT · 8 of 9
    AuH2ORepublican to AuH2ORepublican

    Oops, sorry about all that red type in the prior post. I have no idea how that happened.

  • [Rep. Jeff] Miller to Announce Bid for Rubio’s Senate Seat

    06/25/2015 2:27:36 PM PDT · 7 of 9
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; StoneWall Brigade; BillyBoy; hockeyfan44; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj
    Jeff Miller isn't bad, but Ron DeSantis is a rock star. DeSantis probably is the most conservative member of Congress from Florida, and he isn't so rough around the edges that he'd scare subarbanites into voting for the "moderate" and "pro-business" Democrat Patrick Murphy.

    Given that the less conservative Carlos López-Cantera appears likely to run, I hope that Miller's candidacy doesn't take conservative Panhandle votes away from DeSantis in the primary so as to allow López-Cantera to win with a plurality (FL stupidly got rid of its run-offs years ago).

    As for Miller's House seat, it is one of the most conservative and Republican in the nation, and the winner will be decided in the GOP primary. Let me be the first to tour state Representative Mike Hill of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties as Miller's replacement. Mike Hill's House of Representatives webpage

    Prior to his election to the state House in 2013 (where he has compiled an impeccably conservative voting record: see his key votes here), Mike Hill was the president of the Northwest Florida Tea Party; he also served in the Air Force for a decade (after graduating from the Air Force Academy), got an MBA, has worked in insurance for a couple of decades and has served on the board of several Panhandle-area non-profits. So Mike Hill has the perfect résumé for that district, and has proven his conservative bona fides through his deeds, not just his words. I hope that Mike Hill runs.

  • (Quinnipiac Poll) Majority in three swing states (FL, OH, PA) don't view Clinton as trustworthy

    06/18/2015 5:18:00 AM PDT · 15 of 16
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; campaignPete R-CT; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

    Carrying the Romney states plus FL, OH and PA (without VA or any of the other swing states you mentioned) would be enough to get to 270 electoral votes (273 to be precise) and, in fact, had Romney done a bit better with working-class white Anglos he would have been elected with precisely those states and no othes. But only because PA’s Republican legislature did not switch from winner-takes-all to a CD method of allocation of EVs (like what ME and NE have); if PA gave each nominee 1 EV for every CD carried plus 1 EV to the stateside winner and 1 EV for the candidate with the most CDs carried (a tweak on the method used in ME and NE that would be advatageous to us in states in which we drew the CDs but the RATs usually carry statewide in presidential elections), Romney would have fallen short at 268 EVs (or 267 if his 0.1% victory in PA -08 was reversed in a recount). As I warned when many FReepers were saying that it was a no-brainer for the PA GOP to change its EV allocation method given how RATs tend to win statewide because of the Philly vote, it is perilous for PA (or any other state) to act alone on these matters, because it could have unintended consequences.

    What I did support, and still do, is for a critical mass of states to change their EV allocation method simultaneously so that the GOP nominee gets a near-lock in the electoral College even if he does no better nationwide or state-by-state than Romney did. The bare minimum of states that we need to make the change (allocating 1 EV per CD carried plus 1 EV to the candidate with the most CDs carried and 1 EV for the statewide winner) to make it worthwhile is OH, PA, MI, WI, VA and FL, Had those states made the change for 2012, and assuming no change in the vote total (which is speculative, given that Obama’s team would change its turnout operations iand ad placements if those states weren’t winner-takes-all), then Romney would have been elected with 273 EVs (with only one of his EVs—the aforementioned PA-08—being a victory of less than 1%, making 272 the lowest number of EVs he would have had following any recounts). And if we could get a few additional states adopt such change (say, MN and NV), then NC could adopt the CD allocation method as well and the GOP presidential nominee would have a near-lock on 270 even if the RATs stole NC statewide.

    Of course, not all of those states have full Republican control anymore, given that VA elected a RAT governor in 2013 (and RINOs prevented the state legislature from moving such a bill along when the party did have full control), so we won’t be able to adopt it for 2016. And to the extent that the recent redistricting cases result in map modifications where RAT CDs are “unpacked,” it may reduce the number of CDs that the GOP presidential nominee will be expected to carry (although if SCOTUS rules in favor of the AZ legislature and strikes down voter-mandated redistricting commissions with no state legislative control, it may lead to FL being able to ignore that “fair districts” state constitutional amendment and draw a couple of additional GOP CDs). But this idea definitely is something that we should keep alive and be able to move quickly upon when the time is right.

  • Analysts see 2 ‘hardcore' liberal Democrats running for U.S. Senate in Maryland

    06/15/2015 9:39:46 PM PDT · 22 of 22
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; Oldeconomybuyer; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale

    O still think that a Baltimore RAT will run. Hopefully a white RAT, so that Edwards wins the RAT nomination and the GOP nominee has a shot in the general.

  • Former ‘Blue Dog’ Rep. Joe Baca goes Republican

    06/15/2015 9:35:24 PM PDT · 14 of 15
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; GOPsterinMA; randita; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; GeronL

    It’s California, so they have that stupid (and unconstitutional, IMHO) jungle primary, with everyonevon the same ballot irrespective of party. So there’s no Republican primary, and if Baca finishes in the top two in the jungle primary, he’ll be on the general-election ballot.

  • Erdogan Suffers Serious Setback in Elections

    06/09/2015 8:58:43 AM PDT · 21 of 21
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    While it’s possible that Erdogan merely is a power- hungry populist and not a true-believing Islamist, I don’t think that it matters o e whit. It is often claimed by anti-Castro Cubans that Castro wanted to be a caudillo but didn’t want to meet the fate of most Latin-American dictators (pissing off the U.S. interests that supported him and then getting overthrown) and thus decided to play the Communism game and have the USSR as his sugar daddy instead while blaming all of his country’s ills on those eeeevil American capitalists. My reaction to that is, I don’t care what Castro’s motivations were, he installed a Communist regime that has been violating human rights for 55+ years. Well, similarly, I don’t care why Erdogan is establishing an Islamist state and supporting Islamist terrorists, the fact that he does it is enough for me to oppose him.

  • Sandoval says he won’t run for Reid’s US Senate seat

    06/09/2015 8:11:52 AM PDT · 5 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican to pepsionice

    Sandoval won’t be picked as VP—he’s “pro-choice” on abortion.

    If Sandoval wants to be in office past 2018, then he blew it by not running for the Senate.

  • Eldridge Says He Won’t Run For Congress Again

    06/07/2015 12:23:32 PM PDT · 5 of 5
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; GeronL

    Yes, Peter Lopez sounds like the best of the Republicans considering the race. He’s a conservative with the record to prove it in the state Assembly, his Assembly district is entirely (or just about) within the congressional district, and he wouldn’t be vacating a critical, competitive state Senate district in order to run. And as an added bonus, he would be yet another Hispanic Republican congressman, which will help change the narrative that Hispanics need to be Democrats.

  • GOP Establishment Readying New Primary Challenge for Dovish Rep. Walter Jones

    06/05/2015 4:06:19 PM PDT · 17 of 18
    AuH2ORepublican to Clintonfatigued

    Well, Jones is no “establishment hack,” that’s for sure—he’s a Code Pink hack.

  • Arizona’s Salmon Bides His Time on McCain Challenge

    06/04/2015 9:34:41 PM PDT · 13 of 17
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy

    Oh, and as for Salmon being 60, I’ll take two or three terms from Salmon anyday.

  • Arizona’s Salmon Bides His Time on McCain Challenge

    06/04/2015 9:32:46 PM PDT · 12 of 17
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj

    Yeah, I was going to say, we need someone that will beat McCain in the primary and then beat Kirkpatrick in the general. I think that Salmon has a much better shot than Ward in the primary, and is less likely to blow it in the general. I just hope that McCain faces a single, prominent conservativexand not two conservatives that split the vote.

  • Kirkpatrick to Challenge McCain in Arizona

    06/04/2015 7:45:42 AM PDT · 34 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican to SandRat

    That’s a curious headline givern the poll’s findings:

    “The survey by the Behavior Research Center finds 30 percent those interviewed in late April and early May think John McCain is doing an excellent or good job. That is up slightly from a year ago when his positives were at just 27 percent.

    Conversely, those who rate his job performance as poor or very poor went from 31 percent last year to 26 percent now.

    But McCain may have his work cut out for him to convince voters to reelect him.”

    Those approval numbers are rather pedestrian, and he’s got a big problem with the conservative base in his state. Calling McCain “still popular” is speculative at best.

  • Townhall-Gravis Poll Puts Kelly Ahead in June 2 MS-1 Special Election

    06/03/2015 5:20:20 AM PDT · 14 of 14
    AuH2ORepublican to Kaslin

    When, after describing how the poll was off by 23%, wrote “That was quite the scientific poll there,” I did not think that a sarcasm tag was necessary. It clearly was a shoddy “poll” with an unsound sample and absurd assumptions about turnout that skewed the results even more.

  • Townhall-Gravis Poll Puts Kelly Ahead in June 2 MS-1 Special Election

    06/02/2015 10:19:49 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Kaslin; Impy; randita; wardaddy; Clintonfatigued; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief; ...

    OK, so that poll had Republican Trent Kelly up by a surprisingly close 54% to 37%, and he ends up beating the Democrat by—get this—70% to 30%. So the pollster only missed the winning margin by 23%! That was quite the scientific poll there.

  • GOP Establishment Readying New Primary Challenge for Dovish Rep. Walter Jones

    06/02/2015 8:51:00 AM PDT · 6 of 18
    AuH2ORepublican to BillyBoy; ObamahatesPACoal; Impy; fieldmarshaldj

    The only reason why Walter Jones, Jr. is a Republican is because he got 38% instead of 40% in the first round of the Democrat primary in the newly black-majority NC-01 (his father was the longtime Democrat congressman there, but with less gerrymandered lines that yielded a white majority) in 1992. Had he gotten 2% more, he would have avoided a run-off against black Democrat Eve Clayton (who beat him in the run-off) and thus been the Democrat congressman for the most liberal district in the state. But since he was defeated, he waited two years and then switched to the GOP to run in the adjoining, conservative NC-02, and conned primary voters into voting for him. His voting record was pretty good for the first few years but then he went all Code Pink in 2005 or so and has been one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress since then (although, to his credit, he has continued to vote pro-life on abortion). Walter Jones is far too liberal to represent such a conservative district, and we need a single, qualified conservative Republican to run against him in the primary and take him out.

  • What Happens If Coffman Says No (CO Senate race)

    06/02/2015 5:33:13 AM PDT · 18 of 20
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued

    In theory, a good Senate candidate can come from anywhere—Joni Ernst was a first-term state senator—but we must remember that CO has a far larger number of voters than IA and that 2016 is a presidential-election year. Someone like Cory Gardner—energetic 40-year-old with 3 terms in the state house and 2 terms in Congress, conservative record but with not much controversy, fairly well known in the Denver metropolitan area—would be ideal. Alas, I don’t think that there’s another Gardner on the GOP bench.

    Darryl Glenn served three terms on the Colorado Springs City Council and recently started his second term as an El Paso County Commissioner; those are all four-year terms (although his initial City Council term was a partial one), so he’s been in office since 2003. Glenn also has earned a BA, MBA and JD and is a retired Air Force officer with over 20 years in the military, so he certainly has credentials and experience in leadership positions. That being said, experience in the military and in local government may not be deemed as relevant by voters as is experience in the state legislature and in Congress, and Glenn is almost completely unknown in the Denver metro area that dominates the state. So DJ may be correct that he’d be an ideal candidate to replace Congressman Doug Lamborn in the Colorado Springs-based CO-05; maybe Lamborn and Glenn can be the Gardner and Buck of 2016 and switch races, with Lamborn taking on Senator Bennet and Glenn running in Lamborn’s safely Republican congressional district.

  • How Ty Cobb Was Framed as a Racist

    06/01/2015 7:41:59 PM PDT · 45 of 46
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    Sheesh, lots of fat typing on my iPhone there. Let me try again:

    WV ain’t Southern. It’s a Border State. That was settled in 1863. Plus, WV voted for the GOP presidential candidate in each of 1896, 1900, 1904 and 1908; of the 13 Southern states (OK was admitted in 1907), only once did a single state vote for the GOP presidential candidate, and it was KY voting for McKinley over Bryan by less than 300 votes in 1896.

  • How Ty Cobb Was Framed as a Racist

    06/01/2015 5:56:44 PM PDT · 44 of 46
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    WV ain’t Southern., It’s a Border StateThat was settled in 1863. Plus, WV voted for the GOP presidential candidate in each of 1895, 1900, 1904 and 1908; of the 13 Southern states (OK was admitted in 1907), only once did a single istate vote for the GOP presidential candidate, and it was KY voting for McKinley over Bryan by less than 300 votes in 1896.

  • How Ty Cobb Was Framed as a Racist

    06/01/2015 5:31:57 AM PDT · 41 of 46
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clemenza; sickoflibs; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; stephenjohnbanker; BlackElk

    I strongly disagree. No way that the RATs would near-sweep the South without a Southerner atop the ticket, even if it was Scoop-Carter or Scoop-Askew. (Which reminds me, (I forgot to list FL among the Carter states that Ford would have won against Scoop Jackson.) And without Minnesotan Walter Mondale on the RAT ticket, Ford would have carried WI (which he barely lost; that was the state that would have put Ford over the top against Carter, since he needed OH and one more) and maybe even MN (two states, BTW, in which many dovish Democrats would have stayed home had Scoop Jackson led the ticket).

  • How Ty Cobb Was Framed as a Racist

    05/31/2015 11:07:35 PM PDT · 39 of 46
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj

    Had Scoop Jackson won the 1976 RAT presidential nomination, Ford probably would have won the general. No way that Scoop would have won 11 of the 13 Southern states like Carter did (MS, AL, TX, TN, KY and NC probably would have gone to Ford, as would OH); remember, when Kerry got 47% in FL in 2004, he became the first Northern Democrat to get over 45% in a Southern state since Kennedy in 1960. And the only Ford states that I can see Scoop picking up are WA and OR.

  • 2015 NHL STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS

    05/31/2015 9:12:54 AM PDT · 296 of 401
    AuH2ORepublican to GOPsterinMA; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; sickoflibs; NFHale

    My one comment to your smörgåsbord of remarks is that Donald Trump is the one potential GOP candidate that would make me vote for Rand Paul if they were the only two candidates left. (And he’s the one guy that could make George Pataki say “you’re running for president? What, are you delusional?”)

  • LePage vows to veto Democratic bills until tax plan passes

    05/30/2015 9:38:31 AM PDT · 24 of 41
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; RginTN; Impy; campaignPete R-CT; Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA

    Yes, Gov. LePage’s term ends after the 2018 elections, and he has expressed interest in running for Angus King’s Senate seat. I think that LePage would have an excellent chance of winning. If King stays an Independent, there will be a Democrat nominee that, even if he takes only 10%, would allow LePage to win with 45%. And if King were to switch officially to the RATs, he would lose a lot of the independent and moderate-Republican vote that allows him to win. Perhaps King will try to have it both ways à la Bernie Sanders and run in and win the RAT primary but then become an indie again so that no RAT is on the ballot, but I’m not sure if Maine law would permit that, and besides it would cause him to lose a lot of his right-of-center support.

    Paul LePage would be the most conservative U.S. Senator from ME in decades, if not ever. And the other seat, the one for which RINO Susan Collins was reelected in 2014, could open up right after the 2018 elections if Collins runs for and wins the governorship (about which she has expressed interest). While I would precer that ME not have a liberal like Collins as governor, I think that I would take it if in return a conservative such as Congressman Bruce Poliquin is appointed to serve until the November 2020 election (where hopefully he’d have a leg up on the Democrat nominee). (Of course, if Collins wins the governorship, she would have to decide when to resign from the Senate, and depending on when she does her replacement could be named by Gov. LePage, the President of the Senate of ME that acts as gov. for a couple of days when LePage resigns early to take his Senate seat, or by Collins herself.)

  • LePage vows to veto Democratic bills until tax plan passes

    05/30/2015 8:58:51 AM PDT · 23 of 41
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; Maine Mariner; SunkenCiv; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

    I realize that this makes me an apostate in certain conservative circles, but I don’t like the line-item veto and am glad that it was found to violate the U.S. Constitution when applied at the federal level. (And the case was correctly decided, BTW, given that when Congress passes a bill the president may sign “it” or veto “it” (or pocket it and let the whole thing either become law or be vetoed depending on whether or not Congress has adjourned).)

    Let’s say that Congress includes in the budget $10 million for a pilot program of abstinence-only sex education and $10 million for a sex-education program that includes discussion of contraception. With a line-item veto, Obama could strike out the abstinence-only program but sign the other sex-ed program that only was agreed to as a compromise. And now imagine if Obama could strip out all spending on border enforcement (but keep welfare payments) and line-item-veto aid to Israel’s military (but approve smaller amounts of “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinian Authority. The compromises forged by each house of Congress in the legislative process would be gone, substituted by the biases, whims and caprices of the president (who rarely will be someone like Coolidge or Reagan). And I believe that the same principles hold true when considering a state’s line-item veto.

    True, a line-item veto could result in lower spending to the extent that a president (or givernor) would have signed the bill had it not been available but now can eliminate some line items. But it sometimes will be the case where a president or governor would have vetoed the whole kit and caboodle had the line-item veto not been available, but he takes the easy way out by just vetoing a few of the more distasteful items. And since legislatures know that the executive has a line-item veto, they will tend to approve higher budgets and pass the buck to the executive instead of ensuring that the budget is as trimmed as possible. And even if none of this is true and Congress passed the exact same budget that it would have anyhow, if you’ve got a $3.8 trillion budget, the fact that Obama could reduce it by, say, $100 billion by vetoing conservative projects will do very little to get deficits under control.

    So I don’t think that a line-item veto is a good idea, and instead think that executives should exercise their constitutional authority by threatening to veto bills that don’t meet his approval, and vetoing them if the passed bills don’t meet his criteria.

  • Recanvass Confirms Matt Bevin as Winner of Kentucky Gubernatorial Primary

    05/28/2015 10:05:51 PM PDT · 19 of 21
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    Heiner is a RINO? My (very conservative) uncle lives in Louisville and thinks that Heiner is the bee’s knees (and voted for him in the primary).

  • State Rep. Scott Petri considers run for Congress (Pennsylvania)

    05/28/2015 9:59:35 PM PDT · 5 of 6
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Impy

    You know who don’t forget how they got there? The legislative aides that end up running the show because their “boss” keeps changing every six years. Term limits result in even less accountability.

    And as for unilateral term limits for our guys? Retarded. If candidates want to pledge that they’ll seek term limits for everyone, that’s fine and dandy, but unilateral disarmament only helps the Democrats.

  • Maine Senate Passes Constitutional Carry Bill

    05/28/2015 1:25:53 PM PDT · 9 of 23
    AuH2ORepublican to Red Steel

    “Constitutional carry likely will be passed in Maine as the governor is R.”


    If it passes the state House, it surely would be signed into law by Gov. LePage. But the state House is 52% Democrat and only 45% Republican, with the balance being “Independents.” Will enough rural Democrat Representatives vote for constitutional carry?

  • Virginia's False 'Centrist' Advertising

    05/27/2015 2:51:52 PM PDT · 7 of 10
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; Kaslin; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy

    Joe Donnelly of Indiana is more pro-life than Manchin, but Manchin is les liberal overall. Neither one is really a “moderate.”

    There are a couple of moderate Democrats left in the Housë (and I mean that literally: Collin Peterson and Henry Cuellar are the only two that I would call “moderates,” with Peterson being a moderate-to-conservative), down from around a dozen just a few years ago.

    Oh, but there is no difference between the two parties—I read that on FR.

  • Kirkpatrick to Challenge McCain in Arizona

    05/27/2015 8:05:35 AM PDT · 30 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican to Paulie

    No, and the only thing that Ann shares with Jeane is her Democrat affiliation. (Jeane Kirkpatrick was one of the last decent Democrats.)

  • Kirkpatrick to Challenge McCain in Arizona

    05/26/2015 8:49:20 AM PDT · 2 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Perdogg; ...

    *Ping*

  • Kirkpatrick to Challenge McCain in Arizona

    05/26/2015 8:48:41 AM PDT · 1 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican
    Democrat Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01) is running for the U.S. Senate, partly because she knows that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down Arizona's unconstitutional "redistricting commission" that does not permit the state legislature to draw congressional district lines as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Her district leans Republican but is competitive for a Democrat, so even before the GOP legislature redraws the districts we have a great chance of picking up the seat. As for the Senate election, hopefully she'll be running not against McCain, but against a proven, experienced conservative Republican such as Congressman Matt Salmon.
  • Heck Close to Senate Bid

    05/22/2015 4:20:43 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy

    I haven’t heard anything since that rumor following the election. There’s plenty of risks to redrawing the lines mid-decade: it will be controversial, it will hurt some people’s feelings, it could get struck down by the state supreme court (which is what happened in Colorado in 2003 or 2004), etc. Of course, the potential benefits—drawing enough safe state legislative districts to keep both houses Republican for at least the rest of te decade, and drawing three GOP-leaning congressional districts to just one overwhelmingly RAT CD—far exceed the risks, at least in my mind.

    One thing that Republicans have to make sure, though, is that Gov. Sandoval and that leaders of both houses are on board, because such plans can unravel easily (and leave the party worse off than they were before, given the bad publicity) if the Speaker or the Governor objects. That’s what happened in Virginia in 2013, where the state Senate had to pass the re-redistricitng plan for the state senate districts the day of Obama’s second inaugural (when a black Democrat senator went to DC instead of going to the session) because the RINO Lt. Gov. said that he would not have broken the tie in the evenly split Senate, the Senate-passed bill made Gov. McDonnell unhappy because he would look partisan (maybe he should have been worried instead not to look like a crook for accepting all those gifts from a lobbyist) and the Senate-passed amendment to the prior House bill (which original bill only made minor technical changes to House districts) was ruled “non-germane” by the RINO Speaker and thus defeated without even having a vote in the House.

  • What Happens If Coffman Says No (CO Senate race)

    05/21/2015 5:06:54 PM PDT · 6 of 20
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BillyBoy

    “The downside if Coffman runs, the GOP could lose his seat in a Presidential year.”


    True, but his seat is no more Democrat than the state as a whole, so we’d have a good chance of holding it if Coffman is winning the Senate seat. And even if a RAT picks up the CO-06, I’d be happy to trade it for the Senate seat.

    Coffman is by no means a perfect conservative, but there aren’t that many of those in CO with the profile to win a U.S. Senate election against a RAT incumbent in a presidential year (apart from Senator Gardner, are there any others?). I think that Coffman would be an acceptable candidate given the circumstances, and the fact that CO now votes like NV and NM, not like WY or UT.

  • For Bevin, observers say advertising and messaging key to unofficial GOP nomination

    05/21/2015 2:57:45 PM PDT · 13 of 19
    AuH2ORepublican to fieldmarshaldj; Republican Wildcat; Impy; BillyBoy; Theodore R.; skinkinthegrass; ...

    “he’s never seen “a more improved, polished candidate from basically 365 days apart.””


    That’s certainly good to hear. Bevin was terrible in 2014, and this November’s general election against Conway will be challenging.

  • Nebraska Lawmakers Vote to Abolish Death Penalty

    05/20/2015 4:50:59 PM PDT · 28 of 34
    AuH2ORepublican to Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; GIdget2004; Clintonfatigued

    Unicameral legislatures make it easier to pass bad laws (only one house does the vetting), and non-partisan legislators can’t be defeated in primaries if they stray from their purported ideology. Nebraska has a lethal combination.

    And, yes, thank God that Nebraskans get to elect their own U.S. Senators instead of having the state legislature do it, which is why the state elected conservative Ben Sasse to the Senate instead of some “non-partisn” milquetoast.