February 15, 2016 6:47 AM
Morning Reads — Monday, February 15
Happy Monday, everyone! It’s cold (like my heart) and dark (like my soul) but it’ll be a great day! Unless it’s not.
Jawja
- Falling ice!!!
- Maggie Lee provides a rundown of Georgia’s upcoming primary madness.
- Mayor Reed won’t endorse Senator Fort should he run for mayor.
- Donald Trump is coming back to Jawja.
- Senator Albers makes his case against heavy rail expansion into N. Fulton.
Murica
- ICYMI: Justice Scalia passed away. The hours after his death were somewhat chaotic.
- Despite their ideological differences, the relationship between Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Anthony Scalia was well documented. Justice Ginsburg’s tribute is moving.
- Justice Scalia’s death will certainly change the outcome of the upcoming cases.
- Obama has a shortlist of potential replacements.
- Yikes: Hillary’s campaign in Nevada isn’t doing so well. The state isn’t as white as New Hampshire, but wait…
Important
- Scientist figured out what is so off putting about Ted Cruz’s face. I’m serious. His face has always bugged me. Now we know why.
About Author
Will Kremer
Will is an active member of the Georgia Republican grassroots. He previously served as Chairman of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, 2nd Vice Chairman of the 7th District Republican Party, and Treasurer of the Forsyth County Republican Party. Promise Land = Forsyth County.
45 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is this why younger Dem women have rejected Hillary?
When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism By Dowd
……..What the three older women seemed to miss was that the young women supporting Sanders are living the feminist dream, where gender no longer restricts and defines your choices, where girls grow up knowing they can be anything they want. The aspirations of ’70s feminism are now baked into the culture.
The interesting thing about the spectacle of older women trying to shame younger ones on behalf of Hillary is that Hillary and Bill killed the integrity of institutional feminism back in the ’90s — with the help of Albright and Steinem.
Instead of just admitting that he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and taking his lumps, Bill lied and hid behind the skirts of his wife and female cabinet members, who had to go out before the cameras and vouch for his veracity, even when it was apparent he was lying……
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fmaureen-dowd&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0
Rubio, Trump, Bush, Carson…..all have questioned the integrity of Cruz. They have pointed out issue after issue, in which Cruz claims to pass the purity test but facts do not add up, from immigration, wall street, Roberts…..Is it a fair attack?
Ted Cruz is bashing John Roberts after years of praising him from BI
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-is-bashing-john-roberts-after-years-of-praising-him-2015-6
Justice Scalia’s passing is a terrible loss as he exemplified what we need in leaders. He gave all a voice, thought it through and gave it his best decision. He was a conservative with many liberal friends.
Scalia was the diametric opposite of Clinton and Trump whose strategy is to destroy any opposition and virtually drag their naked corpses through streets lined by thousands of their minions screaming and demonstrating.
It is expected for the democratic president to press to nominate a replacement and for the Republicans to reject or delay the nomination. The best outcome for American is for the matter to be left for the new POTUS. This could be accomplished without the long remembered vitriolic comments, but it won’t.
The GOP can dream a core of Democrats stand by their 1960 resolution against election year Supreme Court appointments.
Salt,
Who do you support?
Rubio – not perfect by a long shot – I prefer a flat tax, a private ( not government owned) but mandated health care, common cause with states in league and no federal involvement, abortion with a few exceptions, govt that looks as all as individuals not in favored groups, voting districts based on communities, not race, sex, religion, political party…..
Politicians that respect and deal with history not rewrite it.
Wha happens 100 years from now if we look back on abortion as a method of birth control to be more barbaric in our history than slavery ? Tear down all statues and memories of those involved ?
We are very close in how we see it via policy….Rubio seems rather green and his policemen of the world foriegn policy is off based. That is why I am supporting Kasich at this pont, like your point no one is perfect.
A historical leader surrounds himself with folks most capable of getting their assigned task done. He has the instincts to sort them from the panderers and those combing on the backs of others.
I hope Rubio can pull it off and I like Kasich but just don’t have that feeing. As it is so rare of an occurrence the odds of picking that person is slim.
All good points…
Typing while riding: typos like s/b anti-abortion with a few exceptions. Climbing not combing…….You got the drift,
My understanding is that the Dems back then were actually opposing recess appointments, but in any case, I suppose today’s Dems will be hoping some Repubs stand by their 1960 support for a full Supreme Court complement as soon as possible.
Historically both sides have flip/flop based on the situation, not any real ideology. Sorta like Bush verse Gore, GOP argued for federal rights and the Dems were for States right. Politics over substance has been the standard. In my opinion, the framers wanted compromise on situations like this, ie why all the checks and balances. It seems that balance has been lost by politics. The irony is Ginsberg from the Left and Scalia from the right were best friends. They both respected the differences and in many cases they agreed on rulings. Both agreed the intellectual debate challenges brought out the best in them. What we should want is more like Scalia and Ginsberg, who are willing to listen, and learn from each other, and less about it being about a blood sport. Can we not have both sides get together and agree on a nomination that falls into the Scalia/Ginsberg, extremely smart but willing to listen and work with others on the court.
Will not happen. Finally, the Republicans have the actual power to oppose Obama. Question is, will they wilt like usual or have some stones. Cannot wait for the fireworks. The Republicans guarantee themselves defeat in any, any future senate race if they do. “Gimme the House, we’ll defeat Obama’s plans!” Gave them the House. “Gimme the Senate, we’ll stop Obama’s plans!” Gave them the Senate. Nothing but capitulation in both chambers. This actually gives them the ability to begin growing a spine. A calcium infusion, if you will.
Well honestly, it’s just stupid to even oppose a nomination that hasn’t even been made. What if he nominates someone like Kennedy? Just opposing Obama for the sake of opposing Obama will not sit well among many mainstream voters. In any case, I think that opposing any and all nominees decreases the chance of a Republican presidential victory.
Do you think Obama nominates a candidate that is appealing to both sides, B? No way. Also, I see this unfortunate incident one that fires up the base, and keeps them white-hot, even those who stayed home in protest of Romney. The national political landscape/future is gen-u-ine-ly in the balance, not rhetoric this time.
Well look at it this way: If he picks an apparent liberal he knows it will never go through and he gets nothing (unless he thinks it would benefit someone’s campaign and wants to intervene like that. I think this is unlikely though because how does that play out- he nominates a lib, the Repubs reject him/her, then Dems try to make an issue of that, but it would be hard to defend if it was a lib!). But I suspect he would rather have a middle-road justice sitting there than whatever he would get if a Repub happened to win. And nominating a middle-roader puts more pressure on Republicans (both running and not running) to accept such a nomination. Hard to defend a rejection.
I think Obama probably nominates a liberal knowing that that person stands no chance of getting confirmed. The hope is that republicans look bad and Hillary wins the presidency. The senate map this year is such that if Hillary wins there is a chance the democrats take the senate as well. If that happens Hillary will get a liberal judge and not a middle of the road one. Just thinking out loud.
So which makes the GOP (Senators) look worse?
(a) Refusing to hold hearings on a far-left liberal appointee?
– or –
(b) Refusing to hold hearings on a moderate appointee previously approved to lower court bench by unanimous Senate vote? (Kelly 96-0, Srinivasan 97-0)
I think in a presidential election year like this one republican voters aren’t going to see liberal appointee or moderate appointee. They will see an Obama appointee. That is all they need to oppose that person and republican senators will be happy to follow the wishes of their voters. Either way they look bad to moderate voters but they win brownie points with the angry right so that’s why they will oppose anyone appointed by Obama.
“republican voters” probably aren’t what is at issue here though. It’s independents, undecideds, swing voters… If a Repub candidate opposes a nominee who is perceived as very qualified and non-partisan, I suspect they will pay a price.
The Eiger,
I agree, very good post, this could be trap. I was thinking the same thing, but you made the point way better than I could….
Yep…Obama is gonna do what he is gonna do and the GOP would be better served by waiting (publically) until he plays a card. Or we can Waive our swords and taunts until the public just doesn’t give a flip.
This latest turn of events with Scalia just adds to the notion that the GOP has no real desire to lead and is truly not a conservative party. Obama has 300+ days left in office and yet we are supposed to believe that it’s improper for him to do his job? Isakson, the GOP candidates, etc. are always holding Obamas feet to the fire in regards to the Constitution….except when it may cost them politically. Do they really think the chances get any better under Hillary?
Why would the GOP want to win the presidency anyway? Wouldn’t that require a 180 shift from obstructionist to actually risk doing something?
A few notes on Saturday’s messy debate.
Rubio. Did good however, he and Cruz calling each other liars is getting old and is unproductive. Rubio couldn’t adequately explain additional child tax credit. He does have good ideas on immigration and returning power to states. If he does not do well in SC he has no chance of winning nomination.
Cruz. Just did ok.
Trumpet. Loser. Made repeated references to Bush family. Could not articulate a workable SS reform plan. Dysfunctional or non existent foreign policy.
Jebby. Just ok. Once again too much talk of Bush family. Did not adequately explain past statements on immigration.
Kasich. Nothing new. Tried to justify Medicaid expansion by using Reagan. Will do little campaigning in south after SC. Kasich Is actually running for VP.
The moderator was terrible and nonexistent at times.
Gcp,
Do you not think Cruz has a real issue with integrity on issues? The guy claims to be the only standard to use on all issues, and his past does not add up. Cruz was a main cheerleader of judge Roberts for years, Cruz was for a path for illegal immigrants to stay in this country for years, Cruz did take votes away from Carson via not telling the truth, Cruz is using robo calls in SC that are not honest, Cruz in NY is open to gay rights, but to social conservatives Cruz claims it is a major issue……I could go on and on…..Is he not the Hillary of the GOP? How is Rubio wrong, when he said Cruz will say anything to anyone to get elected? Will this not be a disaster for the GOP in a general?
John, most conservatives were cheerleaders for Roberts until he voted to make Obamacare constitutional. Since that time, most have no use for him, realizing what a serious mistake his nomination turned out to be.
I get it, but the point Cruz was making he would never make a nomination like Roberts, yet he is one on his biggest advocates. When he in charge of helping Bush 2 with the biggest issue ie winning the election with the dispute in Florida, his go to guy was Roberts. Now he claims he would of never nominate him for a court position. HUH? Somehow Cruz has magical powers that he knows how a nomination will vote on every issue, no one else running, but him can do it via his message. Cruz claims like the issues I listed above he has been 100 percent consistent, no one else is as pure as him. When that facts are Cruz has been all over the place depending who is trying to get to vote for him. The reason Trump and Sanders are surging is because Americans have had enough of the spin BS….
“The reason Trump and Sanders are surging is because Americans have had enough of the spin BS….” You got that right!
Several candidates have credibility/integrity problems but continuing to call a candidate a liar is unwise. Rubio and Cruz looked like kids arguing. Best for Rubio to highlight his current programs and policies and contrast his policies with Cruz current policies.
BTW, still have not heard of any Iowa Carson voter that changed his vote because they heard Carson was ending his campaign.
If the child care tax credit is that, I can wait until the final version. If it is as today, really a rebate – below zero, that is not good.
If Trump can call out the Iraq War and Bush as a disaster in SC and win the primary…how can he ever be stopped?
Trump is the result of people feeling as though the GOP isn’t their party anymore. A common theme among his supporters is he’s not “bought by big corporations” because he’s financing his own campaign. At this point, Trump supporters aren’t worried about his comments about Bush or the Iraq War–hell, they aren’t even concerned he said he could shoot a man and not lose any supporters–they simply want someone who they feel shares their concerns. They are scared that America in 2016 is not the America of their childhood. They are irritated they must press 1 for English. They are concerned about the federal government’s rapid growth. They are irate at President Obama.
Trump says what they are thinking and more. He isn’t worried about sounding politically correct. It resonates with them.
So can he be stopped? I’m not sure. But the GOP needs to reevaluate itself.
Rubio 2016.
Another thing, IMO, Will. I believe many folks are scared and pissed just like you outline. Many of them will also say “no” publicly if they support Trump and his rhetoric about illegals and Muslims. Buttttttt, close that curtain and then pull that lever…Trump wins by margins just like NH. The Silent Majority ain’t gonna be so silent this go round.
That’s not the way it has played out so far. In both Iowa and NH Trump finished lower than his earlier poll numbers. His supporters are not showing up and/or changing their mind when they do show up.
Iowa was caucus which means public. People could be shamed into not voting for him. He lapped the field in NH. A blowout by any measure. Secret ballot. Close that curtain. Let’s sit back and see what happens Sat in SC. I say he beats second place by at least 10 points.
“I say he beats second place by at least 10 points.” Sadly, if that happens then Trump is our nominee. I haven’t seen any polling from Sunday after the debate yet. If that debate performance doesn’t make him drop in the polls I don’t know what will.
I still think he has trouble beating Hillary, but if he does become president you and everyone that believes the snake oil salesman Trump are going to be sorely disappointed when the first thing he does as president isn’t build a wall but raise taxes to pay for his fake wall. He keeps telling you that he’s great at making deals. He’s going to make a deal with democrats to raise and do all the things that you and other angry people have wanted. Defund Planned Parenthood? No way under Trump. Repeal and replace Obamacare? No way under Trump. Appoint supreme court justices that will adhere to the Constitution? No way under Trump. He admits he’s never read it.
Everyone that casts a vote for Trump because they are angry with business as usual in Washington are going to be very disappointed. The only happy people that are going to vote for Trump are the democrats that cross over and vote for Trump over Hillary. Because he is nothing but a democrat selling crap to angry republicans.
*Should be “He’s going to make a deal with democrats to raise taxes and then not do any of the things that you and other angry people have wanted Republicans to do. Like…
The Eiger,
I think the Trump support is not about democrat or GOP it is about people feeling they have been left behind over lobbyist. The truth is both parties have cut deals with the lobbyist over sworn duty to the people. Trump and Sanders are driving the establishment crazy being most people just being feed up with the same old song and dance from both sides. Trump and Sanders are not traditional politicians by any measure. Nor do their views fit in a nice little box for their parties. I would say Sanders is closer to the Dem view of the world than Trump is to the GOP. But calling Trump a Dem is not really accurate, he is a businessman, plain and simple. He has lifted divisions within the GOP on foreign policy and trade. His views fly in the face of the big time donor class. Had a supper bowl party at my house, was stunned how many thought Trump was saying what they feel. BTW Sanders is doing the same to Hillary. As you know I live in one of the most conservative GOP districts in the country, and trust me, many for years have questioned our foreign and trade policy. Telling them they are liberal Dems, would not help the party. Just my 2 cents….
I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m simply saying that everyone that votes for Trump because they think he will change everything is lying to themselves. People like Trump because he isn’t a politician and speaks his mind, but he is pulling the most politician move by just telling people what they want to hear. He will do nothing that he promises. And everyone that voted for him will be disappointed because he can’t build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. He can’t kick everyone with brown skin out of the country. He can’t win against China. Whatever that means. What President Trump can do is raise taxes, compromise with democrats on everything and appoint judges that will be on the bench for decades. I don’t trust him to be what he says he is because his history proves that he something other than what he says he is.
The same people who are voting for Trump called Romney a RINO and stayed home last election. Why is Trump not a RINO for supporting planned parenthood, supporting raising taxes, supporting abortion, and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to democrats. He even though Mitt Romney’s immigration plan was too harsh because Romney’s plan would send people home. Now he is the guy that wants to build a wall? If anyone else currently running as a republican had those views they would be run off with pitchforks by the same people who are voting for Trump. And why is all this happening? Because people are angry and Trump is feeding off of this anger by feeding everyone that is angry a load of crap.
Sometimes when a portion of the electorate feels unheard and powerless they become indignant. Trump is the personification of indignant.
Folks love it when you tell them that their problems are not their fault. Trumpet blames China “China is eating our lunch”, Mexico, Muslims, politicians…
On the other side Burnie blames the one per cent, Wall Street speculators, rigged economy…The tactic of blaming others is an old, but still effective political tool.
For a lot of people it really isn’t their fault. I didn’t lose 30% of my business because of anything I did. The banks screwed up and so my customers couldn’t borrow and spend like they used to. I am pretty much recovered but I’m still pissed because I could be 5 years further ahead than I am now. Many people lost their houses and their jobs from no fault of their own. They are mad about that. And they should be. This kind of abuse cannot continue indefinitely. People will eventually revolt. Something needs to change.
Three entities were responsible for the 2007/08 mess:
Irresponsible lenders
Irresponsible consumers
An irresponsible government that encouraged the whole thing
If any of the three had acted responsibly the mess would not have occurred. If you want to blame someone, then blame all three.
And just today we have not only Cruz getting caught in a lie regarding his endorsement by NOM (which, apparently, is still a thing?) but also TV stations in SC pulling an ad by a pro-Cruz super PAC after their legal counsel reviewed it and the decision was made that “it needed to be pulled and substituted”.
John,
Did you see this in The Hill…..Cruz is full of BS! He will say anything to anyone, and sell out social conservatives for few bucks in a minute. All on this while he missed a hearing on Isis one of our biggest threats. If Cruz did not become a politician, he would of been a gold watch TV preacher more than likely. He is playing social conservatives all the way…..
Cruz hates New York values — but likes New York money From The Hill
……….As recently as Dec. 9, Cruz held a fundraising lunch on Madison Avenue, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that tracks political fundraising events on its Political Party Time website. Among the co-hosts were venture capitalist Ken Abramowitz and prominent attorney Bob Giuffra. Neither could be reached for comment on Friday.
Because of Cruz’s attendance at the fundraiser, the conservative publication National Review ran a negative headline: “Cruz Skips ISIS Hearing for Fox News Appearance, NY Fundraiser.”
Cruz’s comments were also secretly recorded by an attendee at one of his Manhattan fundraising events and leaked to Politico’s Mike Allen and a reporter at The New York Times.
Asked whether fighting gay marriage was a top-three priority, Cruz told a gay-rights supporter at the event that it wasn’t — though he clarified that upholding the Constitution was his overriding focus. (Conservatives often argue that the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage breaches the Constitution.)……..
………And last April, Cruz attended a Manhattan fundraising reception at the home of two well-known gay hoteliers, The New York Times reported. According to the newspaper’s account of the gathering, Cruz struck a gentler tone on gay marriage than he does on the stump, saying he would love his daughters no differently if one of them were gay. He reportedly avoided the subject of gay marriage, saying only that it was an issue best left to the states.
Cruz has had some fundraising success in the Empire State before, having raised a good deal of money there for his 2012 Senate campaign in Texas. While most of his $9.7 million in donations above $200 came from Texas, Cruz, an unlikely victor in that race, still managed to haul in $301,297 from New York-based donors, according to The Hill’s analysis of Federal Election Commission records…….
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/266113-cruz-hates-new-york-values-likes-new-york-money
Interesting possibility pointed out by Rachel Maddow. What if the election ends up in a Supreme Court with only 8 justices? And they deadlock 4-4?
GOPers are making a huge mistake refusing to consider a nominee before the nominee has even been announced. Like others, I wish this president didn’t get the opportunity but that is what happened.