Connect with us

News

Ted Cruz’s opponent: We should ban AR-15s and I don’t give a sh*t what the NRA thinks

Published

on

Via Chris Pandolfo, does this guy know he’s running in Texas? A state where a mass murderer was stopped by a citizen with his own AR-15 not long ago before he could kill any other people?

Never trust a man with one name, my friends. At least unless it has “pundit” stuck on the end.

I think Erick Erickson’s hunch about O’Rourke’s strategy is probably correct:

Only a candidate who already knows he is going to lose would be so bold.

The DSCC and DNC are already abandoning O’Rourke. Most major outside groups will not pour money into his race. The only folks who will support him are liberals giving money to “the cause” and outside groups trying to use O’Rourke as a way to boost liberal turnout in swing, suburban congressional races.

O’Rourke was a longshot to begin with. After he underperformed during last week’s primary while Ted Cruz blew the roof off, getting more votes than all Democratic candidates running statewide combined, he looks like a no-shot. That’s why Cruz was whispering about the risk of a blue wave engulfing Texas before the vote: By raising expectations for the left and encouraging Republican turnout to send a message, he may have smothered O’Rourke’s campaign in its infancy. How much money do Democrats really want to spend on Beto! now? The smart play for O’Rourke is to lose as a loud-and-proud unapologetic liberal, knowing that’ll win him some admirers in the national party and among cable news bookers.

And in fairness to him, arguably the loud-and-proud liberal play is the smarter way to go, as counterintuitive as that may seem. It makes sense to run as a centrist Democrat in a red state if your GOP opponent is flawed and the Republican base is wrestling with whether to support him. If X is the GOP nominee and there’s a sizable “anyone but X” contingent on the right, then the Democrat should logically run as a centrist “anyone but X” figure himself, someone who might not thrill Republican voters but seems unlikely to upset the apple cart if they send him to Congress. See, e.g., Roy Moore and Doug Jones. Cruz doesn’t have enough flaws to replicate that dynamic in Texas, though. He’s unlikable and alienated some Trumpers with his convention speech two years ago but he has Trump’s endorsement now, is whip-smart, and votes reliably conservative on all major issues. There may be an “anyone but Cruz” faction among the right in Texas but not like there was for Moore in Alabama.

In which case, if you’re O’Rourke, what do you gain by running to the center? You’ll disenchant your liberal fans and do little to attract conservative ones, who’ll see you as a pale imitation of a Republican who’s only pandering for votes anyway. Arguably the smarter move is to be the liberal firebrand, keep your fans excited and motivated, and keep the media interested. Maybe, if everything breaks just right for Democrats and a huge national wave gathers, you’ll squeak to a shock victory. If not, then you’ll probably lose by 15 points rather than the 12 you would have lost by if you’d run as a centrist. Shrug.

Besides, although it’s nutty to think that bashing the NRA will make you a senator in Texas, it’s not nutty to think that bashing it will appeal to lots of people, including gun owners. A YouGov poll taken two weeks after the Parkland shooting found the NRA’s favorable rating at 36/45, a departure from the usual even split between admirers and detractors. Even after the Newtown massacre its numbers were only 36/37. It’s been the designated scapegoat for the Parkland shooting, especially among the Stoneman Douglas students, and that’s taken a toll. Plus, as BuzzFeed demonstrated recently, opinions on gun laws differ between gun owners who are NRA members and gun owners who aren’t. Among NRA members, just 24 percent support a proposed nationwide bans on AR-15 versus 75 percent who oppose it. Among non-members who own a gun, the split is just 45/51. O’Rourke might not alienate as many Texans as you think in floating this idea. But enough will be alienated for this and other reasons to reelect Cruz safely.

Exit question: Is it true, as Trump claimed on Twitter, that there’s “not much political support” for raising the legal age to purchase long guns to 21? YouGov found support for that idea at 65/23 among the entire population and at 61/32 among gun owners. BuzzFeed likewise found support among gun owners, 53/46 among NRA members and 76/22 among non-members. There may not be much political support among Republican politicians but there’s support among the public. If Trump wanted to lead on the issue he’d have many voters on both sides behind him.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

New York Times on latest Scott Pruitt “scandal”: Never mind

Published

on

By

When we were recently discussing the Washington Post’s fervent desires to somehow see EPA administrator Scott Pruitt impeached, I provided a roundup of some of the latest “scandals” which have been run up the flagpole. That list only brought us up to Lunchgate, however, and another one slipped past me. (They come up with scandals over there so quickly that nobody can possibly keep track.) In just the past few days the New York Times turned in some additional crackerjack reporting claiming that Pruitt has been abusing the goodwill of his staff and employing his influence as a cabinet member to land his daughter a spot in the University of Virginia Law School.

While perhaps not technically illegal, that’s still dirty pool. Children of powerful government executives shouldn’t get a leg up and a free pass to prestigious schools at any level while regular citizens sweat it out hoping to land a spot for their own kids. (Right President Obama and Michelle?) We can’t allow Scott Pruitt to use his position as a Cabinet member to gain special perks for his family. This is an outrage! Somebody needs to get to the bottom of this and…

Wait a minute. What’s that you say, New York Times? Nevermind? (Emphasis added)

An article on Saturday about senior staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency who said they frequently felt pressured by Scott Pruitt to help in nonwork matters included an item that erroneously described Mr. Pruitt’s use of his position for personal matters. While a Virginia lawmaker, William Howell, said he wrote a letter of recommendation to the University of Virginia Law School on behalf of Mr. Pruitt’s daughter, McKenna, he actually wrote it while Mr. Pruitt was the attorney general of Oklahoma. After publication of the article, additional research by a legislative aide, Mr. Howell said, showed he had incorrectly stated the date of the letter, which he said was actually written on Nov. 1, 2016, more than three months before Mr. Pruitt was confirmed as E.P.A. administrator, in February 2017. The law school, which had declined to comment for the article because of privacy concerns, issued a statement on Saturday saying Ms. Pruitt had given the school permission to confirm that she had been offered early admission in late November 2016 and that the “application was evaluated according to our usual admissions procedures.”

I see. Pruitt’s daughter had gotten her letter confirming early admission months before Donald Trump was even sworn into office. I would have brought this to all of your attention earlier but it took a while to find it. You see, while the news of the original “scandal” was plastered all over page 1 in the Times, this correction showed up at the bottom of page A-17. It was melded in with a correction to the caption under a photograph from somebody’s funeral. (I’m not even kidding.)

Well, mistakes happen, right? Some day we’ll all look back on this and laugh, I’m sure. It will be hilarious, just like that fun-filled time last summer when the Gray Lady reported that Pruitt had taken a secret meeting with the head of Dow Chemicals. (It was some spot on, incisive reporting except for the fact that they later admitted the meeting never happened.) Or that laugh riot from a couple of months ago when the Times reported that a member of Pruitt’s inner circle had been seen out drinking with the EPA Inspector General. (A story which was absolutely accurate, except for the part about the member of Pruitt’s inner circle being out drinking with the EPA Inspector General.)

Good times all, and we shall no doubt remember them fondly down the road. And besides, who among us hasn’t been tracking the Cabinet official we’re trying to paint as being under a cloud of scandal and suspicion and made the odd mistake over and over and over and over and over again?

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

FBI Director Wray Praises Mueller “I Do Not Believe Special Counsel Mueller is on a Witch Hunt” (VIDEO)

Published

on

By

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday on the IG report’s findings of the Clinton email investigation.

Christopher Wray told Senator Leahy (D-VT) that Robert Mueller’s investigation is ‘not a witch hunt.’

FBI Director Wray once again proves he serves the Deep State swamp rather than the interests of the American people.

FBI Director Christopher Wray held a press conference last Thursday afternoon from the FBI headquarters in DC following the release of the IG report was released.

Wray defended the swamp; he said the IG report “did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations actually impacting the investigation under review.”

On Monday, the FBI Director praised Mueller and said the dirty cop is not on a witch hunt.

Truly disgusting.

VIDEO:

We shouldn’t be surprised as Wray defended the corrupt officials in the FBI brass last week in a disgraceful press conference.

Americans are disgusted after reading more anti-Trump text messages from FBI agents.

What a disgrace.
The top officials at the FBI and DOJ hated Donald Trump and his supporters.

The Deep State hacks called Trump supporters: F***ing Idiots, Sad, Pathetic, Retarded.

Chris Wray told reporters there was “no evidence of political bias.”
This is the same FBI that had spies inside the Trump campaign and continued to spy on President-elect Trump after his election and inauguration.
And the FBI spy infiltrating the Trump campaign openly advocated for Hillary Clinton during the election.

According to Wray, there’s no political bias and Mueller is not on a witch hunt despite KGB tactics of breaking down doors and raiding anyone connected to the president without even naming the crime.

Wray needs to go.

Loading…

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Study: The states with the most psychopaths seem to be blue

Published

on

By

Why on Earth would we talk about a Social Science Research Center study like this? The real question is… how could we not?

Reported at QZ, this new study by Southern Methodist University Professor Ryan Murphy correlated a bunch of data which I can’t make heads or tails of and figured out how psychopathic the residents of every state are. He was looking at the “levels of big five personality traits” (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) in each state. These apparently correlate with other traits which identify psychopathic tendencies. To put it mildly, the news was not good for the blue states.

Sometimes, it can feel like there are psychopaths everywhere. If you live in the United States, it’s now possible to move to less psychopathic environs, thanks to new research ranking 48 contiguous states by psychopathy.

Connecticut wins the dubious award of most psychopathic state in the US, followed by California in second, and New Jersey third. New York and Wyoming tie for joint fourth place, followed by Maine. The least psychopathic state is West Virginia, followed by Vermont, Tennessee, North Carolina, and New Mexico…

Earlier research shows that psychopathy is composed of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness, and a forthcoming paper shows that these characteristics can be translated into the big five traits.

I’m still not sure how things like “meanness” and disinhibition translate over to characteristics typical of psychopaths, but then, I only lasted for a few classes in pre-med. It’s still interesting to note that while the five states with the highest psychopath rating were almost entirely blue states in the northeast (plus California), the least psychopathic ones were in red (or at least reddish purple) areas. Who would have guessed that West Virginia would be the best location, particularly if you’ve ever watched the movies based in that region?

Oh, there was one more kicker to the study results. You might have been wondering where the District of Columbia landed. The answer is that it’s not on the list because it rang up a psychopath rating that was off the charts but was disqualified due to mitigating circumstances. (Emphasis added)

Murphy also included the District of Columbia in his research, and found it had a psychopathy level far higher than any other state. But this finding is an outlier, as Murphy notes, as it’s an entirely urban area and cannot be fairly compared with larger, more geographically diverse, US states. That said, as Murphy notes, “The presence of psychopaths in District of Columbia is consistent with the conjecture found in Murphy (2016) that psychopaths are likely to be effective in the political sphere.”

So if you’re looking for the highest concentration of psychopaths in the country, head to Washington, D.C. Apparently they have more of them than you can shake a stick at and the majority are working “in the political sphere.”

C’mon, man. You’re not going to sit there and tell me you’re surprised.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close