Along came Jones?

The title is from a classic early rock and roll song by the Coasters.  Jones in this instance being Roy Moore’s Democrat opponent to serve the balance of Jeff Sessions’ term in the U.S Senate from Alabama.

As for Moore, I’ve thought (and written) that the allegations, even if unproven (or unprovable after four decades) create a miasma around the man. He stinks on ice.

That said, if he is elected, I’m reasonably certain he would vote as a conservative and would support pretty much the entire Trump agenda. As soon, of course, as we actually find out what that agenda might be beyond “I’m the Greatest! Me Me Me!”

Seriously, Moore would tend to vote with the Republican caucus, even if many of the holier-than-thou Republicans would rather he stayed at home. This is both a good and necessary thing.

On the other hand, if the Democrat Doug Jones should win, there’s the likelihood he would toe the Schumer-Pelosi party line. Also, he appears to be an abortion zealot, meaning he’d likely go along with killing a live-born, viable infant if that was the mother’s “choice.”  

Somewhat surprisingly despite all the accusations against Moore, recent polling shows that he is rising in the polls, and JMC Analytics reaches these conclusions:

(1) Roy Moore has regained his lead in the polls;

(2) Republicans have similarly regained the lead in the generic ballot test, and

(3) allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore have not materially impacted the race.

My take?  Oftentimes you go to war with the army you have.  In this case, Roy Moore would at least tend to point his weapons away from his Republican comrades.  Tend to,  although it depends on how tied he might be to Steve Bannon, for whom Mitch McConnell somehow epitomizes Satan his very self.

Strange times, these.


Demography is Not Destiny

Despite what today’s liberals might wish us to believe, the increasing percentage of minorities in the United States does not guarantee some future Democratic Party supremacy.

It turns out that while, yes, minorities (especially Hispanics) are increasing in numbers, they tend to be concentrated in places and Congressional districts that would have voted Democratic anyway.

From Third Way:

Republicans hold the governors’ mansions and both houses of the state legislature in 25 states, while Democrats control all levers of power in just five. . . . In fact, Republicans are now just one state legislature short of being able to call a constitutional convention to consider amendments to our founding document.

Democrats cannot simply rely on demographic change to deliver inevitable victories.

Demographic change is not evenly dispersed in states and voting districts throughout the country.

Voting behavior is not static. Voters more readily change which party they support than the demography-is-destiny models anticipated.

Secretary for ExxonMobil?

The coming nomination of ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson has created a bit of a firestorm.  Obviously, the Democrats have a visceral hatred for anyone who is a fossil fuels guy.  And one doesn’t get much more fossil fuelsy than the CEO of the largest oil company on the planet.  Clearly a bad, bad, bad man.

But Mr. Tillerson has the backing of the only man necessary for the nomination:  Donald J. Trump, president-elect.  But soon after Trump’s inauguration comes the drama:  will Tillerson be confirmed by the Senate?

The Left, and their usual mouthpieces (e.g. the Washington Post) are strewing seeds of scorn and doubt, in equal measure.  The WaPo had a lengthy hit piece article the other day, which featured an endorsement of Tillerson by Darth Vader himself, “Richard B. Cheney.”  Yes, that’s Dick Cheney, who I worked for when he was SecDef.   Yes, that’s still Dick Cheney, when he was George W. Bush’s VP.

The “Richard B.” is just a sly way of heaping scorn on Mr. Cheney.  But, hey, that’s why those WaPo writers and editors get to go to those fancy Georgetown cocktail parties…

The serious point of the article is the clear attempt to sow discontent with Sen. Marco Rubio, a key player on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The money paragraph:

Republicans hold a 10-to-nine advantage on the foreign relations panel. If just one Republican and all Democrats band together against him, they could sink Tillerson’s nomination before it even reaches the Senate floor.

Take that, you fossil fuel loving monster, you.  That said, Tillerson does face some serious questioning about his business and personal relations with Vladimir Putin.  My sense is that, barring a major surprise, the incoming president ought to be able to get who he wants in his cabinet.

Hey, if Obama could have Hillary Clinton, bag lady for the Clinton Foundation, and John Kerry, traitor to his fellow Navy vets as his Secretaries of State, then Rex Tillerson should be a shoo-in.

Nuke it from orbit

“It” being the U.S. Senate’s “tradition” of needing 60 votes to defeat a presidential nominee brought before the Senate for confirmation (or not).

Background, in case you’ve been away from a news source these past few months: Antonin Scalia passed earlier this year, and, shock of shocks, Donald J. Trump will be our next president.  And, to judge from the scowls and howls from lefties, the President Elect’s cabinet choices are a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse.

And now begins the struggle to replace Justice Scalia and confirm President Trump’s cabinet nominations.   My favorites so far are Rep. Tom Price for HHS, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt for EPA, Gen.James Mattis (USMC, ret.) for Defense, and Rep. Mike Pompeo for CIA. Not that any of the nominees are not impressive, in a good way.

Democrats in 2016 have seemingly lost any semblance of bipartisanship.  With rare exception, they will vote in lock-step with their left-most members.  The so-called Blue Dog caucus has shriveled and is no longer a player on their side of the aisle.  The bottom line?  Democrat senators will likely all vote against many of Trump’s nominees.  Regardless of the merits.

Since Republicans will have only a slender 52-48 majority (counting socialist Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, since that’s how he almost always votes), under normal Senate rules, it will be easy for Dems to deny Republicans the necessary 60 votes.

My advice to the Republicans in the Senate comes down to two words: Nuclear Option.  No, not nuking the site from orbit. It’s going to simple majority rules in the U.S. Senate if that’s what it takes to defeat obstructionism from the Left.

It’s what you do if you need to secure the greater good for the nation. The benefits?  It will give the incoming president the benefit of the doubt on his cabinet choices.  Which had been the norm for most incoming presidents.  It’s simple:  if Democrats, having in the past used the nuclear option (big thanks and shout-out to Harry Reid; don’t let the Senate door slam you in the butt on you way out), will now see what it’s like when the shoe is on the other foot.

Against this very real benefit, what is lost is a bit of non-constitutional Senate “tradition.” Boo-hoo. The Dems showed no restraint when it suited them.  They abandoned the 60-vote “tradition” when it suited them to confirm appellate judges.

Politics ain’t beanbag; let’s give it back to them in spades.  Seems a fair trade to me.

Summer of Trump

Ah, Donald Trump. He is now a media frenzy, a human tornado of bloviation, exaggeration, and braggadocio. I very much admire the man’s brass huevos, and love it when he gives off-the-top-of-his-head responses. But wait, as they say on the infomercials, is it possible this jamoke could gain our nomination and actually be elected president? I did not think so, but…

Anecdotal, but perhaps a leading indicator of The Donald’s electability: First, a good friend, a lifelong Democrat and liberal, very much likes Trump and says she will vote for him. First double-take.

Second, my union-forever inlaws have told me they also like Trump, and would vote for him. Second double-take.

In both cases, likely the first Republican (ok, purists – the man on the Republican ticket) they will have ever voted for.

My conclusion, albeit quite tentative, is that Trump, should he gain the Republican nomination, has a very good chance at winning.

The question for actual Republicans, including myself, is this: Is Donald Trump the best we can do? Seems to me he is a Republican of convenience. He is mercurial, and has changed his positions radically within the very recent past.

Perhaps the Summer of Trump will lead to an Autumn Awakening among Republicans, and Trump will take his proper place, trailing genuine and serious conservatives such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Rick Perry.

Fun with the Left

The Daily Beast is a must-read for those of us who would follow the latest in political correctness, multiculturalism, and, in general, turning a blind eye to liberal hypocrisy. Of course, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and again.

Today we learn of “Tea Partier Chris McDaniel’s Mississippi KKK Connection.” One can almost hear those sweet and sad sounds of Dixie being played at Jeff Davis’ funeral.

The basis for the scare headline? It boils down to this excerpt from the story (and it’s a story in the best use of the term to connote a work of fiction):

Tea Partier Chris McDaniel has taken $800 in donations from Carl Ford, a former lawyer for Sam Bowers, the imperial wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan…

Oh, the humanity. That nasty Kluxer Chris McDaniel is about to go night riding and lynching black people. Well, perhaps not. The scare headline, and the “facts” about it, put McDaniel a mere two steps away from taking money from someone who provided a legal defense to a now deceased Kluxer.

In fairness, the Beast also highlighted the somewhat closer connection between Hillary Clinton and a pedophile who raped a child. A pedophile who Hillary got off on a legal technicality. Do the Democrat’s have the perv vote sewn up yet? See, I can write scare headlines as well…

In the real world, that piece of human garbage was guilty of raping a child. Hillary got him off. And now, according to the Beast, she’s laughing about it.

That is today’s Left: taking a campaign contribution from someone who defended a Kluxer is bad bad bad; being the lawyer who gets a child rapist off on a technicality is a qualification to be our next president?

God spare us.



If all you read was the mainstream media, you’d be forgiven for assuming that the current partial government shutdown was caused solely by Republicans. As reported earlier today on Fox & Friends, the boxscore for who’s to blame in the mainstream media is Republicans 21, Democrats 0.

The zero for Democrats is accurate, but only to the extent that they have shown zero real interest in actual compromise. And yet, possibly because it would racist or something to blame Obama, it is always the Republicans who are blamed for being unwilling to compromise.

Today’s lead editorial in the Obama house organ, a/k/a the Washington Post, blames the Republicans:

…Republicans are putting U.S. embassies across the world at risk with their shutdown of the U.S. government.

You might be forgiven for thinking that Republicans, somehow, were in control of the Executive Branch and its Department of State. Even if we granted that, somehow, when there are two sides to a dispute, it is always one side’s fault when there is not an agreement, how can it be Republicans’ fault that our State Department is not protecting our embassies? It can’t be, and is not. It is Democrats who are at the helm of the State Department and the Executive Branch.

Why is it Obama and his administration’s fault? Simple. Each Executive Branch agency, including the State Department, designates which, if any, of its employees are considered “essential,” and thus exempt from furlough during a partial government shutdown.

Last time I looked, it was Obama and his Democrat Secretary of State who made the decision as to which State Department employees protecting embassies were considered essential.

Guess embassy security isn’t essential to this administration. Republicans had nothing to do with this decision, WaPo. This editorial is dishonest and misleading.