Josh Hawley seems to have destroyed Claire McCaskill and will be Missouri's next United States senator, completing the total GOP takeover of Missouri. The Democrats have a congressional seat in St. Louis and one in Kansas City and that's all they've got left here.
I'm not quite sure what to say about that except, maybe, this. I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats owned this state. There might have been congressional Missouri Republicans here and there but the Donks ruled Show-Me-Land.
Harry Truman and all that.
Then there was one Missouri statewide GOP win. And another. And another. Then there started to be GOP pickups all over the place. Then Pukes stopped caring about the Civil War and about how their fathers and grandfathers voted back in the day.
Then the floodgates opened.
What, if anything, can the Democrats do about it? Check back.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
END OF THE DAY
Of all of the reasons to oppose Donald Trump, David French articulates the worst.
Beautifully said, by @bariweiss. In that vein, the Southern Baptist convention is right: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”
Let me try an analogy. You have a plumbing problem at your domicile that you don't know how to fix (which, in my case, would be every single conceivable plumbing problem).
So you're going to have to hire a plumber. Do you (A) talk to every single local plumber you can in order to determine whether the personal religion or morality of that plumber agrees with your own? Or (B) do you hire the best, highest-rated plumber that you possibly can regardless of whether they're Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian or Taoist?
Thought so.
The president of the United States is a great many things but when you get right down to it, the president of the United States is one thing and only one. He's not a prophet or a priest. He's not another Moses, called by God to lead this country into some kind of golden era.
He's the First Federal Employee. Full stop.
If he does an acceptable job, he'll get another four years. If he doesn't, he won't. Think of a US president as anything more than that and you risk developing a serious drinking problem when your preferred candidate loses to a reality TV show star because she never visited Wisconsin.
Besides, how seriously are conservatives supposed to take calls for the advancement of conservative values coming from institutional conservative politicians or writers who don't seem to take those values all that seriously themselves?
Exhibit A? Mitt Romney.
Mitt's probably a good guy. Way more devoted to his marriage vows than Donald Trump ever was, that's for sure. And not long before he ran for president, about as liberal as Donald Trump supposedly was, if not more so. Called himself pro-choice, participated in gay pride parades, etc.
Hey, if you want to be governor of Massachusetts, you have to do stuff like that. Maybe. But here's a thought. Kick around the idea of maybe not letting the institutional GOP repackage you as a "conservative" and run you for president.
That is, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
And whatever you do, don't seriously respond to your various attacks or call out the media on its obvious bias. Because that would be unseemly or something. Just sit back, accept your inevitable defeat and await your Strange New RespectTM down the road.
The institutional GOP would have had its "okay, we tried it your way, now shut up and leave the serious stuff to serious people" moment and Jeb Bush would have been obliterated by Hillary last time out. But Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States.
I don't think I can explain why any better than that.
Beautifully said, by @bariweiss. In that vein, the Southern Baptist convention is right: “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”
Let me try an analogy. You have a plumbing problem at your domicile that you don't know how to fix (which, in my case, would be every single conceivable plumbing problem).
So you're going to have to hire a plumber. Do you (A) talk to every single local plumber you can in order to determine whether the personal religion or morality of that plumber agrees with your own? Or (B) do you hire the best, highest-rated plumber that you possibly can regardless of whether they're Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian or Taoist?
Thought so.
The president of the United States is a great many things but when you get right down to it, the president of the United States is one thing and only one. He's not a prophet or a priest. He's not another Moses, called by God to lead this country into some kind of golden era.
He's the First Federal Employee. Full stop.
If he does an acceptable job, he'll get another four years. If he doesn't, he won't. Think of a US president as anything more than that and you risk developing a serious drinking problem when your preferred candidate loses to a reality TV show star because she never visited Wisconsin.
Besides, how seriously are conservatives supposed to take calls for the advancement of conservative values coming from institutional conservative politicians or writers who don't seem to take those values all that seriously themselves?
Exhibit A? Mitt Romney.
Mitt's probably a good guy. Way more devoted to his marriage vows than Donald Trump ever was, that's for sure. And not long before he ran for president, about as liberal as Donald Trump supposedly was, if not more so. Called himself pro-choice, participated in gay pride parades, etc.
Hey, if you want to be governor of Massachusetts, you have to do stuff like that. Maybe. But here's a thought. Kick around the idea of maybe not letting the institutional GOP repackage you as a "conservative" and run you for president.
That is, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
And whatever you do, don't seriously respond to your various attacks or call out the media on its obvious bias. Because that would be unseemly or something. Just sit back, accept your inevitable defeat and await your Strange New RespectTM down the road.
The institutional GOP would have had its "okay, we tried it your way, now shut up and leave the serious stuff to serious people" moment and Jeb Bush would have been obliterated by Hillary last time out. But Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States.
I don't think I can explain why any better than that.
Monday, November 5, 2018
FIRE IN THE HOLE
Ezra Klein readies the next leftist line of attack.
I don't think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority. After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so).
Seriously, kid? If a Republican wins, say, District 3 here in Missouri but the nationwide House popular vote favors the Democrats, the Missouri District 3 Republican congressman is illegitimate? Seems that that would make every single winning Democrat congressman in this country as illegitimate as that Missouri District 3 Republican congressman.
After all, it's the same election. Why would one election be illegitimate but not another? Unless, of course, you think that only Democratic Party wins are political legitimate in which case...
Okay, now I'm getting it.
UPDATE: Right on schedule.
UPDATE: Once again.
I don't think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority. After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so).
Seriously, kid? If a Republican wins, say, District 3 here in Missouri but the nationwide House popular vote favors the Democrats, the Missouri District 3 Republican congressman is illegitimate? Seems that that would make every single winning Democrat congressman in this country as illegitimate as that Missouri District 3 Republican congressman.
After all, it's the same election. Why would one election be illegitimate but not another? Unless, of course, you think that only Democratic Party wins are political legitimate in which case...
Okay, now I'm getting it.
UPDATE: Right on schedule.
UPDATE: Once again.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES
Let's put it this way. SCTV was ALWAYS a better show than SNL, one of the two most overrated American "comedy" shows (the other one's Seinfeld). Great comedy is always built on an underlying intelligence, something SNL rarely had and certainly doesn't have now. In fact, the only time SNL was ever genuinely funny or interesting was when Eddie Murphy was there.
YOONEES
Major League Baseball has just been handed a wonderful new marketing idea because some of these are really cool. If these things existed right now they'd be flying out of the stores as I type this. I'd buy one. Maybe two or three different ones.
Except for one thing.
There's a but?
There's always a but. The St. Louis Cardinals version is just...wrong.
Except for one thing.
There's a but?
There's always a but. The St. Louis Cardinals version is just...wrong.
 |
| The Rangers ought to adopt the Yankees version right now. And if Kansas City ever gets an NHL team, and they should, they should be called the Royals (or the Monarchs; KC history and all that) and they should wear this exact thing. |
PLATFORM
Be my guest, dumbass. Run on this.
That’s why we need to ban civilian firearms and make illegal possession a capital crime. Publicly execute a few hundred thousand illegal gun owners and the rest will get the message
That’s why we need to ban civilian firearms and make illegal possession a capital crime. Publicly execute a few hundred thousand illegal gun owners and the rest will get the message
Saturday, November 3, 2018
SMUG SEZ
Climate change is a myth. The weather doesn't change because of cars. The weather changes because there aren't enough birds in the area.
If birds leave an area it gets cold and might start snowing. If birds arrive in an area it gets warm and could start spring or summer.
Can't argue with the science.
Can't argue with the science.
Friday, November 2, 2018
KANSAS-NEBRASKA II
In a perfect world, this Senate Judiciary Committee letter would accomplish two things. It would reelect Donald Trump in 2020. And any presidential aspirations Kamala Harris might entertain would be deader than whatever's left of William Henry Harrison. Selections follow.
I am once again writing regarding fabricated allegations the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recently received. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee processed the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, leading to his eventual confirmation on October 6, 2018. As part of that process, the Committee has investigated various allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh. The Committee’s investigation has involved communicating with numerous individuals claiming to have relevant information. While many of those individuals have provided the Committee information in good faith, it unfortunately appears some have not. As explained below, I am writing to refer Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for materially false statements she made to the Committee during the course of the Committee’s investigation.
On September 25, 2018, staffers for Senator Harris, a Committee member, referred an undated handwritten letter to Committee investigators that her California office had received signed under the alias “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California. The letter contained highly graphic sexual-assault accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. The anonymous accuser alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her “several times each” in the backseat of a car. In addition to being from an anonymous accuser, the letter listed no return address, failed to provide any timeframe, and failed to provide any location -- beyond an automobile -- in which these alleged incidents took place.
On September 25, 2018, staffers for Senator Harris, a Committee member, referred an undated handwritten letter to Committee investigators that her California office had received signed under the alias “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California. The letter contained highly graphic sexual-assault accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. The anonymous accuser alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her “several times each” in the backseat of a car. In addition to being from an anonymous accuser, the letter listed no return address, failed to provide any timeframe, and failed to provide any location -- beyond an automobile -- in which these alleged incidents took place.
Then, on October 3, 2018, Committee staff received an email from a Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton with a subject line claiming: “I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA -- Kavanaugh raped me.” Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote that she was “sharing with you the story of the night that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car” and referred to “the letterthat I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19 with details of this vicious assault.” She continued: “I know that [‘]Jane Doe[’] will get no media attention, but I am deathly afraid of revealing any information about myself or my family.” She then included a typed version of the Jane Doe letter.
Eventually, on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter. When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”
Eventually, on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter. When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside, California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”; (2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.”
And now for the punch line.
When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: “Oh Lord, no.”
Read the whole thing.
In a perfect world, other things should also happen. This woman and ANYONE else directly or indirectly involved in this hit job, for that's all it ever was, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm not interested in jail time for any of them. Having to explain a felony conviction to a future prospective employer or voter is more than enough punishment.
In a perfect world, most Starbucks baristas or McDonald's drive-through window people would be unemployable poli-sci majors.
In a perfect world, American "journalists" would take a long, hard look at themselves and their alleged "profession." And that class of "conservative" writers and politicians who would rather gouge out their own eyes and eardrums rather than say anything nice about Donald Trump would realize just how much the American left hates them and always will.
But we won't live in a perfect world until Jesus returns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)